United States v. Truesdale

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 For the Court - By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6471 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALTON RAY TRUESDALE, Defendant -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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