United States v. Como
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6539
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANDREW COMO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-495, CA-97-3477-7-20)
Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 26, 1998
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew Como, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Andrew Como 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, deny Como’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and
dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United
States v. Como, Nos. CR-95-495; CA-97-3477-7-20 (D.S.C. Mar. 4,
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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
United States v. Como (United States v. Como) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.