Filed: Dec. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7177 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NAHIF ABDUL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00052-GMG-RWT-1) Submitted: December 17, 2019 Decided: December 20, 2019 Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nahif Abdul, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7177 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NAHIF ABDUL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00052-GMG-RWT-1) Submitted: December 17, 2019 Decided: December 20, 2019 Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nahif Abdul, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7177
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NAHIF ABDUL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00052-GMG-RWT-1)
Submitted: December 17, 2019 Decided: December 20, 2019
Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nahif Abdul, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nahif Abdul appeals from the district court’s order denying his post-judgment
motion for appointment of counsel to assist him in filing a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Abdul, No.
3:08-cr-00052-GMG-RWT-1 (N.D.W. Va. July 29, 2019). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2