Filed: Mar. 06, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7056 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAYNALDO BRANDON, a/k/a Naldo, a/k/a Nardo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-94-141, CA-98-1344-AM) Submitted: January 19, 2001 Decided: March 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7056 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAYNALDO BRANDON, a/k/a Naldo, a/k/a Nardo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-94-141, CA-98-1344-AM) Submitted: January 19, 2001 Decided: March 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam op..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7056
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RAYNALDO BRANDON, a/k/a Naldo, a/k/a Nardo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.
(CR-94-141, CA-98-1344-AM)
Submitted: January 19, 2001 Decided: March 6, 2001
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raynaldo Brandon, Appellant Pro Se. Tessa Marie Gorman, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Raynaldo Brandon seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-
ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif-
icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of
the district court. See United States v. Brandon, Nos. CR-94-141;
CA-98-1344-AM (E.D. Va. filed May 11, 2000; entered May 12, 2000).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2