Filed: Mar. 16, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7519 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ABBAS SADEGH, a/k/a Abby, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-95-113-A) Submitted: February 26, 1999 Decided: March 16, 1999 Before ERVIN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7519 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ABBAS SADEGH, a/k/a Abby, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-95-113-A) Submitted: February 26, 1999 Decided: March 16, 1999 Before ERVIN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7519
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ABBAS SADEGH, a/k/a Abby,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CR-95-113-A)
Submitted: February 26, 1999 Decided: March 16, 1999
Before ERVIN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Abbas Sadegh, Appellant Pro Se. Justin W. Williams, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Abbas Sadegh appeals the district court’s order denying his
motion for appointment of counsel to prepare a successive motion
pursuant to 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 affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See United States v. Sadegh, No. CR-95-113-A (E.D.
Va. Sept. 18, 1998).* We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
*
Although the district court’s order is dated September 17,
1998, the district court’s records show it was entered on the
docket sheet on September 18, 1998, which is the date we take as
the effective date of the court’s order. See Wilson v. Murray,
806
F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, 79(a).
2