Filed: Jul. 13, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6899 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARLYLE EDGAR COLEMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-20, CA-96-840-R) Submitted: June 30, 1998 Decided: July 13, 1998 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6899 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARLYLE EDGAR COLEMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-20, CA-96-840-R) Submitted: June 30, 1998 Decided: July 13, 1998 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam op..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6899 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARLYLE EDGAR COLEMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-20, CA-96-840-R) Submitted: June 30, 1998 Decided: July 13, 1998 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlyle Edgar Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Carlyle Edgar Coleman seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) and his motion for reconsideration, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reason- ing of the district court. United States v. Coleman, Nos. CR-93-20; CA-96-840-R (W.D. Va. May 16 & May 28, 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