Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. LaBoy, 97-7477 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7477 Visitors: 21
Filed: Mar. 04, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7477 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAUL LABOY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-91-87-BO, CA-97-69-4-BO) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: March 4, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublis
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7477 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAUL LABOY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-91-87-BO, CA-97-69-4-BO) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: March 4, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raul LaBoy, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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) with respect to his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the government's failure to file a notice of intent to seek an en- hanced penalty, and the district court's violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Appellant's motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. LaBoy, Nos. CR-91-87-BO; CA-97-69-4-BO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 4, 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
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