Filed: Oct. 16, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7021 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALBERT H. DOLES, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-00-202) Submitted: September 24, 2002 Decided: October 16, 2002 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert H. Doles, Jr., Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7021 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALBERT H. DOLES, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-00-202) Submitted: September 24, 2002 Decided: October 16, 2002 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert H. Doles, Jr., Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7021 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALBERT H. DOLES, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-00-202) Submitted: September 24, 2002 Decided: October 16, 2002 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert H. Doles, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. N. George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Albert H. Doles, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Doles, No. CR-00-202 (E.D. Va. Mar. 20 & Apr. 25, 2002).* 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. AFFIRMED * Doles’ conclusory and speculative claim that the United States entrapped him into distributing drugs within 1000 feet of a school lacks merit. 2