United States v. Randolph

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6539

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES EDWARD RANDOLPH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:03-cv-04159-CMC)

Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: August 2, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Edward Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Todd Hagins, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

James Edward Randolph appeals the district court’s order

denying his “Place Holder Motion Challenging Subject Matter

Jurisdiction.”* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. United States v. Randolph, No. 3:03-cv-04159-CMC

(D.S.C. Feb. 14, 2006). 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

* To the extent Randolph’s motion could have been construed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), it would likewise be without merit. See United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65 (4th Cir. 2005).

- 2 -