Filed: May 18, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6186 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD OTIS RUTLAND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-132-5, CA-97-811-5) Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 18, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6186 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD OTIS RUTLAND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-132-5, CA-97-811-5) Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 18, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rob..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6186 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD OTIS RUTLAND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-132-5, CA-97-811-5) Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 18, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Gregg Levitt, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant. Jane Barrett Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. 1998). 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. Rutland, Nos. CR-91-132-5; CA-97-811-5 (D.S.C. Dec. 8, 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