Filed: Nov. 24, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7093 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OTIS SALLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-96-17, CA-98-3612-5) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Otis S
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7093 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OTIS SALLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-96-17, CA-98-3612-5) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Otis Sa..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7093
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
OTIS SALLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-96-17, CA-98-3612-5)
Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999
Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Otis Salley, Appellant Pro Se. Cameron Glenn Chandler, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Otis Salley seeks to appeal 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 deny a certificate of appeal-
ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district
court. See United States v. Salley, Nos. CR-97-17; CA-98-3612-5
(D.S.C. July 22, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2