United States v. Hunter ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 97-7564
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MICHAEL HUNTER, a/k/a Big Mike,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
    trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District
    Judge. (CR-93-156, CA-97-431-2)
    Submitted:   February 10, 1998            Decided:   March 17, 1998
    Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his mo-
    tion 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. Appellant asserts that the district court
    erroneously sentenced him pursuant to 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (b)(1)(A)(iii)
    (1994). We find that Appellant has waived review of this nonconsti-
    tutional claim because he did not raise it at sentencing or on
    direct appeal. See Stone v. Powell, 
    428 U.S. 465
    , 477 n.10 (1976);
    United States v. Emanuel, 
    869 F.2d 795
    , 796 (4th Cir. 1989). In
    addition, to the extent that Appellant contends that counsel was
    ineffective at sentencing and on appeal for failing to assert that
    Appellant was improperly sentenced under § 841(b), we find that
    claim to be without merit. See Strickland v. Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
     (1984).
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dis-
    miss this appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
    and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
    before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97-7564

Filed Date: 3/17/1998

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021