Filed: Jan. 26, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6965 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TRACY DEMONT HUMPHRIES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Richard C. Erwin, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-153-G, CA-95-575-2) Submitted: January 13, 1998 Decided: January 26, 1998 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6965 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TRACY DEMONT HUMPHRIES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Richard C. Erwin, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-153-G, CA-95-575-2) Submitted: January 13, 1998 Decided: January 26, 1998 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by u..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6965
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TRACY DEMONT HUMPHRIES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Richard C. Erwin, Senior
District Judge. (CR-91-153-G, CA-95-575-2)
Submitted: January 13, 1998 Decided: January 26, 1998
Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tracy Demont Humphries, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 accepting the recommenda-
tion of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accord-
ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United
States v. Humphries, Nos. CR-91-153-G; CA-95-575-2 (M.D.N.C.
June 5, 1996). See Lindh v. Murphy,
521 U.S. ___,
1997 WL 338568
(U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). Appellant's motion for appoint-
ment of counsel is denied. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2