Filed: Aug. 25, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6285 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARMEN BLANCO CRUZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-267, CA-98-714-9-8) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 25, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6285 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARMEN BLANCO CRUZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-267, CA-98-714-9-8) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 25, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6285
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CARMEN BLANCO CRUZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CR-93-267, CA-98-714-9-8)
Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 25, 1999
Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
W. Gaston Fairey, FAIREY, PARISE & MILLS, P.A., Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Matthew R. Hubbell, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Carmen Cruz seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We
have reviewed the record, the district court’s order, and the
transcript of the hearing at which the court stated its reasons for
denying Cruz’ motion and find no reversible error. We agree with
the district court that counsel’s alleged error was not a struc-
tural defect in Cruz’ trial and that Cruz failed to satisfy the
standard for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel as set
forth in Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668 (1984). Accord-
ingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. 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