Filed: Jun. 02, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6265 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JIMMY LAWRENCE NANCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-92-135, CA-99-6) Submitted: April 30, 1999 Decided: June 2, 1999 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6265 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JIMMY LAWRENCE NANCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-92-135, CA-99-6) Submitted: April 30, 1999 Decided: June 2, 1999 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ji..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6265 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JIMMY LAWRENCE NANCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-92-135, CA-99-6) Submitted: April 30, 1999 Decided: June 2, 1999 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Lawrence Nance, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jimmy Lawrence Nance seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his “Request for Reconsideration, or Alternatively, Motion to Re-open Section 2255.” We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Nance, Nos. CR-92-135; CA-99-6 (W.D. Va. Feb. 11, 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. DISMISSED 2