Case ID: f-appx_193/html/0207-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Edward RANDOLPH, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 06-6539.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 25, 2006.
    Decided: Aug. 2, 2006.
    James Edward Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Todd Hagins, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAKLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

James Edward Randolph appeals the district court’s order denying his “Place Holder Motion Challenging Subject Matter Jurisdiction.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Randolph, No. 3:03-cv-04159-CMC (D.S.C. Feb. 14, 2006). 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. 
      
       To the extent Randolph’s motion could have been construed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), it would likewise be without merit. See United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65 (4th Cir.2005).