United States v. Pear ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7174
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ISAAC J. PEAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CR-92-445, CA-98-1245-2-8)
Submitted: February 29, 2000 Decided: August 30, 2000
Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Isaac J. Pear, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Howe Hendricks, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Isaac J. Pear seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny-
ing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999).
We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. Pear failed to show that he
was entitled to relief as a result of his counsel’s performance.
See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984); Hill v.
Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). Even assuming there was error in
the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, such error was harmless. See Fed.
R. Crim. P. 11(h). Finally, the district court did not err in
declining to force the Government to file a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35
motion on Pear’s behalf. We dispense with oral argument and deny
Pear’s motion for the appointment of counsel at the Government’s
expense because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2