United States v. Nnani

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 10, 1996
• Docket: 95-6108
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Opinion on Rehearing

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6108

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

VALENTINE CHUKWUEMEKA NNANI,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CR-91-10, CA-94-687-5-BR)

Submitted: September 24, 1996 Decided: October 10, 1996

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and HALL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Valentine Chukwuemeka Nnani, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Edwin Hamilton, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.

104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. This court affirmed. By order dated July

29, 1996, a panel of this court granted Appellant's petition for

rehearing and vacated the prior panel decision.

On rehearing, we have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Although the record

does not contain a transcript of the evidentiary hearing on this motion, the district court granted Appellant's request for such

transcript. However, Appellant failed to act to procure such

transcript and failed in this court to state a substantial question

warranting preparation of the transcript at government expense. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994); Maloney v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,

396 F.2d 939 (D.C. Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1030 (1970).

Because the record before the court reveals that disposition of this motion required only a credibility determination, and the

district court apparently resolved that issue against Appellant, we

affirm the district court's order denying Appellant's § 2255 mo-

tion. See United States v. Locklear, 829 F.2d 1314, 1317 (4th Cir. 1987) (credibility determinations reviewed for clear error, accord-

ing substantial deference to district court). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED