Filed: Mar. 12, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7074 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEON RANDOLPH, JR., a/k/a Darren Irving Picott, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-91-94-G, CA-96-901-2) Submitted: February 17, 1998 Decided: March 12, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unp
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7074 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEON RANDOLPH, JR., a/k/a Darren Irving Picott, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-91-94-G, CA-96-901-2) Submitted: February 17, 1998 Decided: March 12, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7074 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEON RANDOLPH, JR., a/k/a Darren Irving Picott, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-91-94-G, CA-96-901-2) Submitted: February 17, 1998 Decided: March 12, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leon Randolph, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabil- ity and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Randolph, Nos. CR-91-94-G; CA-96-901-2 (M.D.N.C. May 22, 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