Filed: Jan. 22, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6593 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEORGE GLYMPH, d/b/a Specifications and Stan- dards, Inc., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-94-776, CA-96-3790-3-19) Submitted: July 8, 1997 Decided: January 22, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublish
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6593 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEORGE GLYMPH, d/b/a Specifications and Stan- dards, Inc., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-94-776, CA-96-3790-3-19) Submitted: July 8, 1997 Decided: January 22, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublishe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6593
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GEORGE GLYMPH, d/b/a Specifications and Stan-
dards, Inc.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CR-94-776, CA-96-3790-3-19)
Submitted: July 8, 1997 Decided: January 22, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George Glymph, Appellant Pro Se. Eric William Ruschky, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Appel-
lant is foreclosed from raising his sufficiency of evidence claim
because he litigated it on direct appeal and did not assert an
intervening change in law that warrants reconsideration. See Davis
v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 342 (1974); Boeckenhaupt v. United
States,
537 F.2d 1182, 1183 (4th Cir. 1976). Further, because
Appellant failed to challenge the form of his indictment in his
direct appeal, he may not assert it in this collateral proceeding.
See Stone v. Powell,
428 U.S. 465, 477 n.10 (1976). Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. United
States v. Glymph, Nos. CR-94-776; CA-96-3790-3-19 (D.S.C. Apr. 16,
1997). 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.
DISMISSED
2
