Filed: Jun. 18, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6945 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEORGE CLINTON ETHERIDGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-90-48, CA-97-173-2) Submitted: March 31, 1998 Decided: June 18, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per cur
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6945 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEORGE CLINTON ETHERIDGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-90-48, CA-97-173-2) Submitted: March 31, 1998 Decided: June 18, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6945 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEORGE CLINTON ETHERIDGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-90-48, CA-97-173-2) Submitted: March 31, 1998 Decided: June 18, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Clinton Etheridge, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap- pealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Etheridge, Nos. CR-90-48, CA-97-173-2 (E.D. Va. June 10, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2