Court Opinion

ID: 991697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:40:42.091493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:48.844876
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 96-7138

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

RUDOLPH LANE, a/k/a Bay Boy,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CR-92-88-N, CA-96-176-2)

Submitted:   February 27, 1997            Decided:   March 11, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rudolph Lane, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Dee Griffith, Jr., OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiter-
rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district

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

a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Lane, Nos. CR-92-88-N, CA-96-176-2
(E.D. Va. July 1, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-

rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

                                                         DISMISSED

                                2