Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl HARRISON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-02-06
Citations: 26 F. App'x 335
Docket Number: No. 01-7447
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl HARRISON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 26
Pages: 335–335

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl HARRISON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-7447.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 31, 2002.
Decided Feb. 6, 2002.
Carl Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. Monica Kaminski Schwartz, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Carl Harrison seeks to appeal the district court's orders (1) denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001); and (2) denying his motion for remission of his fíne. We have reviewed the record, the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, and the district court's order denying his motion for remission of his fine, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Harrison, Nos. CR-97-143; CA-00-792 (S.D.W. Va Aug. 13 & Sept. 4, 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.
To the extent that Harrison raises claims in his informal brief that were not presented to the district court, we note that he cannot raise them for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).