Opinion on Rehearing for limited purpose of amending opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7920
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TONY MAURICE HAIRSTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CR-92-85-R, CA-96-346-R)
Submitted: January 27, 1998 Decided: May 19, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alan G. Ellis, LAW OFFICES OF ALAN ELLIS, P.C., Sausalito, Cali-
fornia, for Appellant. Joseph William Hooge Mott, Assistant United
States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying
his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).
We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning
of the district court. United States v. Hairston, Nos. CR-92-85-R;
CA-96-346-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 22, 1996). We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2