Court Opinion

ID: 989946
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:14:28.941405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:42.831058
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 96-6267

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

MAURICE V. SMITH,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CR-93-51, CA-95-47-4-H)

Submitted:   July 23, 1996                  Decided:   July 31, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice V. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Edwin Hamilton, III,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the court order

denying relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), as amended by Anti-
terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1217. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Smith, Nos. CR-93-51; CA-95-47-4-H (E.D.N.C. Feb. 6, 1996). We also

deny his motion for the preparation of a transcript at Government's

expense and 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

                                2