Court Opinion

ID: 2964368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:24:39.700307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:50.328480
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1442

                                 ZOLTON A. PHILLIPS,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Respondent, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________

                                 ____________________

            Zolton A. Phillips on brief pro se.
            __________________
            Donald  K.  Stern,  United  States  Attorney,  Mark  D.   Seltzer,
            _________________                              __________________
        Director,  New England Bank Fraud  Task Force, Anita  S. Lichtblau and
                                                       ___________________
        Paul M. Glickman, Trial  Attorneys, Criminal Division, U.S. Department
        ________________
        of Justice, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   October 17, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   We agree  with the  reasoning of  the
                      __________

            district court and affirm the dismissal of appellant's   2255

            petition  basically for  the reasons  stated by  the district

            court  in  its  March   18,  1996  opinion.    We   deny  the

            government's motion to strike  portions of appellant's  reply

            brief because  considering the  allegedly new  material would

            not change our decision.

                      Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________

                                         -2-