Filed: March 23, 1999
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Nos. 98-6471(L)
(CR-92-34, CA-97-209-P, CA-97-210-P)
United States of America,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
Alton Ray Truesdale, et al,
Defendants - Appellants.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed September 8, 1998, as
follows:
On the cover sheet, section 4, line 3, and on page 2, text of
opinion, line 7 -- case number “CA-97-209-P” is added to the lower
court information.
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6471
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALTON RAY TRUESDALE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 98-6472
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TENNISON ALEXANDER HARRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior
District Judge. (CR-92-34, CA-97-209-P, CA-97-210-P)
Submitted: July 28, 1998 Decided: September 8, 1998
Before ERVIN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alton Ray Truesdale, Tennison Alexander Harris, Appellants Pro Se.
Kenneth Davis Bell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Alton Ray Truesdale and Tennison Alexander Harris seek to
appeal the district court’s orders denying their motions filed
under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed
the records and the district court’s opinions and find no rever-
sible error. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and
dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. United
States v. Truesdale, No. CR-92-34; CA-97-209-P (W.D.N.C. Mar. 4,
1998); United States v. Harris, Nos. CR-92-34; CA-97-210-P
(W.D.N.C. Mar. 9, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3