Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

930 F.2d 23

Docket No. 90-6909.

United States v. Spry

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted Nov. 26, 1990. Decided April 9, 1991.

This page is marked noindex.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1991-04-09

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Major Media of the Southeast, Incorporated, D/B/A Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company of Raleigh-Durham v. City of Raleigh

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1991-04-09

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, District Judge. (CR-82-124-N, CR-82-157-N, CA-90-61-N)

Edward Lee Spry, appellant pro se.

Raymond Alvin Jackson, Office of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, Va., for appellee.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WILKINSON, WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Edward Lee Spry 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. Spry, CR-82-124-N, CR-82-157-N, CA-90-61-N (E.D.Va. Sept. 26, 1990). 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.

¶2

AFFIRMED.

/930/f2d/23 · .json · Public domain