UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7760
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KEVIN E. BALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-99-229; CA-02-229-2)
Argued: May 24, 2005 Decided: June 29, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Paul Samuel Rosenzweig, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Michael Lee Keller, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Thomas J. Gillooly, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
In an earlier appeal we affirmed Kevin E. Ball’s
conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm after
conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(9) and 924(a)(2). See United States v.
Ball, 7 Fed. Appx. 210 (4th Cir. 2001). Thereafter, Ball filed in
the district court a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court, after
concluding that none of Ball’s six grounds for relief had merit,
entered an order denying his § 2255 motion. Ball filed a timely
notice of appeal, and the district court granted a certificate of
appealability on three issues: (1) whether Ball’s Fifth Amendment
rights were violated when he was questioned outside his home
without benefit of warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384
U.S. 436 (1966); (2) whether Ball’s conviction violated the Ex Post
Facto Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3; and (3) whether Ball
received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial
counsel did not raise the Miranda issue. In reviewing these
issues, we have considered the briefs, the joint appendix, and the
arguments of counsel. Finding no error, we affirm on the reasoning
of the district court. Ball v. United States, civ. action no.
2:02-00229 (S.D. W. Va. Aug. 31, 2004).
AFFIRMED
2