Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Bazilio, 97-7359 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7359 Visitors: 1
Filed: May 26, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7359 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TROY NOLAN BAZILIO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CR-93-41-F, CA-97-32-5-F) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 26, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7359 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TROY NOLAN BAZILIO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CR-93-41-F, CA-97-32-5-F) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 26, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy Nolan Bazilio, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Raleigh, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) and granting in part his motion for reconsideration.* We have re- viewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal- ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Bazilio, Nos. CR-93-41-F; CA-97-32-5-F (E.D.N.C. June 3 & Aug. 19, 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 deci- sional process. DISMISSED * Although the district court modified the reasoning of its prior order, it upheld the dismissal of Appellant's § 2255 motion. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer