Filed: Jul. 14, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6834 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SAMMY CHAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-95-33-4, CA-97-3393-4-22) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sammy Chavis, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6834 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SAMMY CHAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-95-33-4, CA-97-3393-4-22) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sammy Chavis, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6834
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SAMMY CHAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CR-95-33-4, CA-97-3393-4-22)
Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sammy Chavis, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Sammy Chavis seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny-
ing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999).
We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and
find no reversible error. Furthermore, there is no merit to
Chavis’ contention that venue was improper in South Carolina. See
United States v. Al-Talib,
55 F.3d 923, 928 (4th Cir. 1995); United
States v. Gilliam,
975 F.2d 1050, 1057-58 (4th Cir. 1992).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States
v. Chavis, Nos. CR-95-334; CA-97-3393-4-22 (D.S.C. June 2, 1998).
We deny Chavis’ motions to appoint counsel, to compel the district
court to correct the record on appeal, and to remand his case to
the district court. 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