Filed: Jan. 28, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7572 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT LEE BURRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-240, CA-98-516-3-P) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7572 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT LEE BURRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-240, CA-98-516-3-P) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7572 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT LEE BURRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-240, CA-98-516-3-P) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Burris, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Lee Burris appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Burris, Nos. CR-93-240; CA-98-516-3-P (W.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
