Filed: Jun. 02, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6187 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EMMANUEL UZUEGBUNAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-96-43, CA-98-517) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 2, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emmanuel Uzuegbunam, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6187 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EMMANUEL UZUEGBUNAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-96-43, CA-98-517) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 2, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emmanuel Uzuegbunam, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6187 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EMMANUEL UZUEGBUNAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-96-43, CA-98-517) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 2, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emmanuel Uzuegbunam, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Gerald McBride, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Emmanuel Uzuegbunam 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. See United States v. Uzuegbunam, Nos. CR- 96-43; CA-98-517 (E.D. Va. Feb. 1, 1999). We deny Appellant’s mo- tion for appointment of counsel. 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