Filed: Jan. 15, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6855 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LUIS CARBARCAS-A, a/k/a Lucho, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-85-62-C, CA-95-436-3-P) Submitted: December 30, 1997 Decided: January 15, 1998 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6855 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LUIS CARBARCAS-A, a/k/a Lucho, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-85-62-C, CA-95-436-3-P) Submitted: December 30, 1997 Decided: January 15, 1998 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6855
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LUIS CARBARCAS-A, a/k/a Lucho,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior
District Judge. (CR-85-62-C, CA-95-436-3-P)
Submitted: December 30, 1997 Decided: January 15, 1998
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cheryl Johns Sturm, Westtown, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Frank
DeArmon Whitney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his
motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the
record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. United States v. Carbarcas-A, Nos. CR-85-62-C; CA-95-436-3-P
(W.D.N.C. Apr. 16, 1996). See Lindh v. Murphy,
521 U.S. ___,
1997
WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2