Filed: Feb. 09, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7175 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEVEN ELLIOTT GRAHAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Rockingham. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-95-307, CA-97-468-3) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 9, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7175 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEVEN ELLIOTT GRAHAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Rockingham. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-95-307, CA-97-468-3) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 9, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven E..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7175 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEVEN ELLIOTT GRAHAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Rockingham. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-95-307, CA-97-468-3) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 9, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Elliott Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Steven Elliott Graham 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 adopting the report and recommendation of a mag- istrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea- soning of the district court. See United States v. Graham, Nos. CR-95-307; CA-97-468-3 (M.D.N.C. May 26, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2