Filed: Sep. 24, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6385 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD WARLICK WHITE, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Shelby. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CR-92-100, CA-97-101-V-4) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6385 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD WARLICK WHITE, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Shelby. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CR-92-100, CA-97-101-V-4) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6385 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD WARLICK WHITE, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Shelby. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CR-92-100, CA-97-101-V-4) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Warlick White, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Harry Thomas Church, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). Appellant also seeks review of the court’s order declining to reconsider that disposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions 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. White, Nos. CR-92-100; CA-97-101-V-4 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 6, 1998; Dec. 12, 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 2