Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Witherspoon, 98-7316 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7316 Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 03, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7316 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OSTER WITHERSPOON, a/k/a Little Man, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-288, CA-96-3536-8-2) Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 3, 1998 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dism
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7316 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OSTER WITHERSPOON, a/k/a Little Man, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-288, CA-96-3536-8-2) Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 3, 1998 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oster Witherspoon, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton, As- sistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Oster Witherspoon 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 cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Witherspoon, Nos. CR-91- 288; CA-96-3536-8-2 (D.S.C. Aug. 21, 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer