United States v. Andrews

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7506

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY ANDREWS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-01-27-F; CA-02-44-7-F)

Submitted: February 28, 2006 Decided: April 7, 2006

Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed on modified grounds by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Anthony Andrews appeals the district court’s order

construing his motion to compel as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion,

granting the Government’s motion to dismiss it as successive, and

denying his motion to recuse. We have reviewed the record and find

that Andrews’s motion should have been entertained as a motion to

compel, rather than as a § 2255 motion. However, because the

motion to compel was properly denied in any event, we find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Andrews’s motions for

abeyance and to recuse and affirm the district court’s order on the

modified grounds that the motion to compel was properly denied.

See United States v. Andrews, Nos. CR-01-27-F; CA-02-44-7-F

(E.D.N.C. Aug. 1, 2005). 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.

AFFIRMED ON MODIFIED GROUNDS

- 2 -