Court Opinion

ID: 995764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:41:41.684937+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:17.103875
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 98-6319

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

BERNARD MAURICE JAMES, a/k/a Cheeks,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.
(CR-94-79, CA-97-453-3)

Submitted:   July 2, 1998                  Decided:   July 27, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Maurice James, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia;
Mary Hannah Lauck, James Brien Comey, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-

pealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. James, Nos. CR-94-79; CA-97-453-3 (E.D. Va.

Jan. 30, 1998). 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

                                2