United States v. Charles Edward Currie

976 F.2d 727, 1992 WL 259192
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 7, 1992
Docket91-7734
StatusUnpublished

This text of 976 F.2d 727 (United States v. Charles Edward Currie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Charles Edward Currie, 976 F.2d 727, 1992 WL 259192 (4th Cir. 1992).

Opinion

976 F.2d 727

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Charles Edward CURRIE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 91-7734.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 27, 1992
Decided: October 7, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-90-1-3, CA-91-119-CIV-3)

Charles Edward Currie, Appellant Pro Se.

G. Norman Acker, III, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina for Appellee.

E.D.N.C.

Affirmed.

Before RUSSELL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

Charles Edward Currie appeals from the district court's order refusing relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Currie, Nos. CR-90-1-3, CA-91-119-CIV-3 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 31, 1991). We deny Currie's Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
976 F.2d 727, 1992 WL 259192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-charles-edward-currie-ca4-1992.