United States v. Hairston

Opinion

Opinion on Rehearing for limited purpose of amending opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7920

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TONY MAURICE HAIRSTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-92-85-R, CA-96-346-R)

Submitted: January 27, 1998 Decided: May 19, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alan G. Ellis, LAW OFFICES OF ALAN ELLIS, P.C., Sausalito, Cali- fornia, for Appellant. Joseph William Hooge Mott, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. 1997).

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

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. United States v. Hairston, Nos. CR-92-85-R; CA-96-346-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 22, 1996). We dispense with oral argu-

ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-

sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED