United States v. Perkins

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7913

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CLARENCE GOODWIN PERKINS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CR-93-194, CA-95-1124)

Submitted: August 29, 1997 Decided: December 3, 1997

Before HALL and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Goodwin Perkins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Perkins, Nos. CR-93-194; CA-95-1124 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 9, 1996). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S.

___, 65 U.S.L.W. 4557 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We deny Appellant's motion for a writ of mandamus. 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