Full text
United States v. Townes
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7381
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EDWARD L. TOWNES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-94-49, CA-97-310-3)
Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: February 1, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward L. Townes, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Stephan Altimari, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Edward L. Townes appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See United States v. Townes, Nos. CR-94-49; CA-97-310-3 (E.D. Va. Sept. 1, 1999); see also Boeckenhaupt v. United States, 537 F.2d 1182, 1183 (4th Cir. 1976) (holding that collateral attack cannot ordinarily be made on the basis of issues litigated on direct appeal); Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that issues raised for first time on appeal generally will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances); Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 477 n.10 (1976) (noting that nonconstitutional claims that were not raised on direct appeal may not be raised in a collateral proceeding). 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.