United States v. Robert Earl Martin

918 F.2d 174

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: December 11, 1990
• Docket: 90-7055
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

918 F.2d 174
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Robert Earl MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 90-7055.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 29, 1990.
Decided Nov. 14, 1990.
Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied Dec. 11, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CR-88-43-5, CA-90-196-5)

Robert Earl Martin, appellant pro se.

William Dial Delahoyde, Paul M. Newby, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, N.C., for appellee.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, PHILLIPS and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Earl Martin appeals from the district court's order refusing relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit.* Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Martin, CR-88-43-5, CA-90-196-5 (E.D.N.C. May 11, 1990). The government's motion to have its informal brief received as timely filed is granted. 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.

* Although Martin states in his informal brief that he was not informed of his right to appeal, he did not make this claim in the district court and it will not be considered on appeal. Kinty v. United Mine Workers of America, 544 F.2d 706, 722 (4th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1093 (1977). In addition, after review of supplementary materials submitted by the government, we are satisfied that Martin had notice of his right to appeal