United States v. Clark

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

United States v. Clark

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7299

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ADRIAN CLARK, a/k/a L.A.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-96-20, CA-98-54-3)

Submitted: January 13, 2000 Decided: January 20, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adrian Clark, Appellant Pro Se. David Earl Godwin, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia; Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Adrian Clark seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny-

ing his motion filed under

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 1999).

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 dis-

trict court. See United States v. Clark, Nos. CR-96-20; CA-98-54-3

(N.D.W. Va. Sept. 3, 1999). Additionally, we decline to address

the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, which was raised

for the first time on appeal. We dispense with oral argument be-

cause 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Unpublished