Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Ingram, 99-6987 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6987 Visitors: 22
Filed: Oct. 27, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6987 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WALTER LOUIS INGRAM, Defendant - Appellant. No. 99-7131 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WALTER LOUIS INGRAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-92-116, CA-97-3512-JFM) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 27, 1999
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6987 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WALTER LOUIS INGRAM, Defendant - Appellant. No. 99-7131 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WALTER LOUIS INGRAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-92-116, CA-97-3512-JFM) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 27, 1999 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Louis Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Walter Louis Ingram seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motions to reconsider a previous 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 opin- ions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Ingram, Nos. CR-92-116; CA-97-3512-JFM (D. Md. May 17 & July 27, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer