Wronka v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Wronka v. United States

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7241

JERZY WRONKA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CR-92-288-MU, CA-96-71-MU)

Submitted: November 18, 1997 Decided: December 18, 1997

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James William Reilley, Arlington Heights, Illinois, for Appellant. Kenneth Davis Bell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Char- lotte, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 under

28 U.S.C. § 2255

(1994) (current version at

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 grant Appellant's motion to file a pro se supplemental brief, deny his motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wronka v. United States, Nos. CR-92-288-MU; CA-96-71-MU (W.D.N.C. June 25,

1996). See Lindh v. Murphy,

521 U.S. ___

,

1997 WL 338568

(U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We deny Appellant's motion for 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

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished