Filed: May 17, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7600 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JORGE VILLARIEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-96-155-H, CA-99-303-5-H) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 17, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jorge Villarie
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7600 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JORGE VILLARIEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-96-155-H, CA-99-303-5-H) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 17, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jorge Villariel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7600 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JORGE VILLARIEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-96-155-H, CA-99-303-5-H) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 17, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jorge Villariel, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jorge Villariel 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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. See United States v. Villariel, Nos CR-96-155-H; CA- 99-303-5-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 22, 1999). We dispense with oral argu- ment 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