Filed: Jul. 29, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6630 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL HILL, a/k/a Saleet, a/k/a Steve Philip, a/k/a Junito Tomilson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CR-96-42-F, CA-97-73-7-F) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Cir
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6630 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL HILL, a/k/a Saleet, a/k/a Steve Philip, a/k/a Junito Tomilson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CR-96-42-F, CA-97-73-7-F) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6630
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL HILL, a/k/a Saleet, a/k/a Steve
Philip, a/k/a Junito Tomilson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.
(CR-96-42-F, CA-97-73-7-F)
Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998
Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Hill, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s orders de-
nying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.
1998), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed
the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United
States v. Hill, Nos. CR-96-42-F; CA-97-73-7-F (E.D.N.C. July 17,
1997; Jan. 23, 1998; Mar. 11, 1998). 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