United States v. Malaj ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 95-7254
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ANTON MALAJ,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
    trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (CR-92-170-A, CA-95-744-AM)
    Submitted:     January 23, 1996         Decided:     February 16, 1996
    Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Cheryl Johns Sturm, West Chester, Pennsylvania, for Appellant.
    John Kuchta, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
    Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (1988) motion. Our review of the record and the
    district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without
    merit. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the
    district court. United States v. Malaj, Nos. CR-92-170-A; CA-95-
    744-AM (E.D. Va. June 19, 1995). In addition, Appellant's claim
    that the sentencing court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 was waived
    by Appellant's failure to pursue an appeal and raise this noncon-
    stitutional issue in that proceeding. See United States v. Emanuel,
    
    869 F.2d 795
    , 796 (4th Cir. 1989). Finally, Appellant's claim that
    his counsel was ineffective for dismissing his appeal without Ap-
    pellant's knowledge is meritless. We find that Appellant's failure
    to apply for reinstatement of his appeal, when given the opportu-
    nity to do so by this court, prevents him from showing that he was
    prejudiced by his counsel's performance as required by Strickland
    v. Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    , 693-697 (1984). 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.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 95-7254

Filed Date: 2/16/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021