United States v. Stansbury

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6287 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TROY DONYEL STANSBURY, a/k/a Tommy D. Rodriguez, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR- 89-434-S, CA-96-36-S) Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 1, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Michael Schad, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant. Harvey E. Eisenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Stansbury, Nos. CR-89-434-S; CA-96-36-S (D. Md. Feb. 16, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion to transfer this case to a formal briefing schedule and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court, including Appellant's informal brief, and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2