Filed: Jul. 24, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7413 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HARRY FREMONT BARR, a/k/a Harry Junior Barr, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-45-2-5-BO, CA-97-242-5-BO) Submitted: March 24, 1998 Decided: July 24, 1998 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublish
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7413 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HARRY FREMONT BARR, a/k/a Harry Junior Barr, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-45-2-5-BO, CA-97-242-5-BO) Submitted: March 24, 1998 Decided: July 24, 1998 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublishe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7413 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HARRY FREMONT BARR, a/k/a Harry Junior Barr, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-45-2-5-BO, CA-97-242-5-BO) Submitted: March 24, 1998 Decided: July 24, 1998 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harry Fremont Barr, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Philip Swaim, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap- pealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 2
