Filed: Oct. 28, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7080 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GREG COMMANDER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-91-57-G, CA-97-740-1) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 28, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Greg C
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7080 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GREG COMMANDER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-91-57-G, CA-97-740-1) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 28, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Greg Co..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7080
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GREG COMMANDER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr.,
District Judge. (CR-91-57-G, CA-97-740-1)
Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 28, 1998
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Greg Commander, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
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. Commander, Nos. CR-91-57-G; CA-97-740-1
(M.D.N.C. May 26, 1998). In addition, this Court will generally not
consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Karpel v.
Inova Health Sys. Servs.,
134 F.3d 1222, 1227 (4th Cir. 1998). We
note there was sufficient evidence to sentence Appellant based upon
crack cocaine. 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