Filed: Jul. 27, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6128 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES VASSELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-89-190, CA-95-11-2) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 27, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Vassell,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6128 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES VASSELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-89-190, CA-95-11-2) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 27, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Vassell, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6128 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES VASSELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-89-190, CA-95-11-2) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 27, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Vassell, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Vassell appeals the district court’s order denying 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. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Vassell, Nos. CR-89-190; CA- 95-11-2 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 7, 1999). 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. AFFIRMED 2
