Filed: Jun. 17, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8060 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRIAN STEPP, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-99-24, CA-00-862-2) Submitted: May 23, 2002 Decided: June 17, 2002 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8060 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRIAN STEPP, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-99-24, CA-00-862-2) Submitted: May 23, 2002 Decided: June 17, 2002 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam op..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-8060
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BRIAN STEPP,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II,
Chief District Judge. (CR-99-24, CA-00-862-2)
Submitted: May 23, 2002 Decided: June 17, 2002
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian Stepp, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, John Castle
Parr, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Brian Stepp seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). 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 appealability and
dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United
States v. Stepp, Nos. CR-99-24; CA-00-862-2 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 3,
2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
*
Stepp seeks to raise an issue not presented to the district
court. We will not consider this issue as it is raised for the
first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States,
1 F.3d 246, 250
(4th Cir. 1993).
2