Filed: Sep. 24, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6622 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD J. ROBINSON, a/k/a Jason, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-92-163, CA-97-445-2) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6622 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD J. ROBINSON, a/k/a Jason, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-92-163, CA-97-445-2) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edw..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6622 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD J. ROBINSON, a/k/a Jason, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-92-163, CA-97-445-2) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward J. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). 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. Robinson, Nos. CR-92-163; CA-97-445-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 26, 1998). 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