Filed: Aug. 26, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6674 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JIMMY RAY SMITH, a/k/a Pac-Man, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-107, CA-98-926-1) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed b
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6674 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JIMMY RAY SMITH, a/k/a Pac-Man, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-107, CA-98-926-1) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6674 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JIMMY RAY SMITH, a/k/a Pac-Man, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-107, CA-98-926-1) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Ray Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Clifton Thomas Barrett, As- sistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jimmy Ray Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order de- nying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal- ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Smith, Nos. CR-97-107; CA-98-926-1 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 23, 1999). 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. DISMISSED 2