REHEARING EN BANC GRANTED BY ORDER FILED 10/10/96;
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED 7/23/96 IS VACATED BY
UNPUBLISHED ORDER.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
FILED: October 10, 1996
No. 95-6603
(CR-90-54-WS, CA-93-357)
WILLIE REYNOLDS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
O R D E R
The appellant's petition for rehearing and suggestion for
rehearing en banc were submitted to this Court; the appellee
submitted a response to the petition.
Upon consideration of the parties' submissions, the Court
GRANTS the petition for rehearing and VACATES its judgment of July
23, 1996. Further, the judgment of the district court regarding
the appellant's fourth claim, pertaining to his conviction of the
charge specified in Count Two of the Indictment, is VACATED and
REMANDED to the district court for further consideration in light
2
of Bailey v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995), United States v.
Hawthorne, 94 F.2d 118 (4th Cir. 1996), and United States v. Smith,
94 F.2d 122 (4th Cir. 1996).
The judgment of the district court regarding the appellant's
remaining claims is AFFIRMED.
Entered at the direction of Judge Hall, with the concurrence
of Judge Murnaghan and Judge Niemeyer.
For the Court,
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6603
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIE REYNOLDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-90-54-WS, CA-93-357)
Submitted: March 12, 1996 Decided: July 23, 1996
Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman, As-
sistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
4
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the
district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis-
trate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on
the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Reynolds,
Nos. CR-90-54-WS; CA-93-357 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 31, 1995). We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5