Filed: Sep. 01, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6999 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WARREN EDWARD FORNEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-93-83, CA-96-30-T) Submitted: July 31, 1998 Decided: September 1, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Grant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6999 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WARREN EDWARD FORNEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-93-83, CA-96-30-T) Submitted: July 31, 1998 Decided: September 1, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Grant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6999 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WARREN EDWARD FORNEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-93-83, CA-96-30-T) Submitted: July 31, 1998 Decided: September 1, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Grant Belser, BELSER & PARKE, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jerry Wayne Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTOR- NEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under former 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998)). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal- ability and dismiss the appeal. The omission of the language “and carry” in the description of the 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1994), convic- tion on the judgment order does not amount to error requiring 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. We deny Appellant’s motion for summary reversal and 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. DISMISSED 2