United States v. DeBardeleben

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6597 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES M. DEBARDELEBEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-84-43-B, CA-97-1131-B) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: November 16, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James M. DeBardeleben, Appellant Pro Se. Tarra R. DeShields-Minnis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James M. DeBardeleben seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) of the court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), his motion to disqualify the judge, and his motion for decision. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal- ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. DeBardeleben, Nos. CR-84-43-B; CA-97-1131-B (D. Md. Sept. 4, 1997; Mar. 12, 1998). DeBardeleben’s motion “for decision by unbiased judge due to Clerk Connor’s harassment” is denied as baseless, and his motions “to disqualify Circuit Judges Russell, Phillips, and Murnaghan” and “for decision on motion to waive 50 page brief limit” are denied as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2