United States v. Brooks
United States v. Brooks
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6306
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY C. BROOKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-14, CA-95-787)
Submitted: March 26, 1998 Decided: April 6, 1998
Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony C. Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Elizabeth Evans, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Richmond, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
To the extent that Appellant raises issues for the first time on
appeal, we decline to address the issues. See Muth v. United States,
1 F.3d 246, 250(4th Cir. 1993). Regarding Appellant's
claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the
search of his apartment, in not preparing him to testify, for fail-
ing to object to the admission of his confession, in not objecting to prosecutorial misconduct, and for failing to correct his sen-
tence, we have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the
district court. United States v. Brooks, Nos. CR-93-14; CA-95-787
(E.D. Va. Jan. 16, 1997). Additionally, we find that the nonconsti-
tutional issue raised in Appellant's supplemental brief has been waived by the failure to raise the issue on direct appeal. See
Stone v. Powell,
428 U.S. 465, 477 n.10 (1976); United States v. Emanuel,
869 F.2d 795, 796(4th Cir. 1989).
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.
DISMISSED
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished