Filed: Jan. 09, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6166 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROWLAND BRIT WAMPLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-134-R, CA-96-186-R) Submitted: October 21, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rowland Br
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6166 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROWLAND BRIT WAMPLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-134-R, CA-96-186-R) Submitted: October 21, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rowland Bri..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6166
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROWLAND BRIT WAMPLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District
Judge. (CR-92-134-R, CA-96-186-R)
Submitted: October 21, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rowland Brit Wampler, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 substantially on the reasoning of the
district court. United States v. Wampler, Nos. CR-92-134-R; CA-96-
186-R (W.D. Va. Dec. 6, 1996). See Lindh v. Murphy,
117 S. Ct. 2059
(1997). We note that Appellant carried the firearm at issue, as
carry is defined in United States v. Mitchell,
104 F.3d 649, 653
(4th Cir. 1997). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of
counsel, deny the government's motion to dismiss the appeal, and
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