Filed: Nov. 10, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7040 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HOSAM MOHAMMED ZAKARIA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-91-181-A) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 10, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hosam Moham
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7040 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HOSAM MOHAMMED ZAKARIA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-91-181-A) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 10, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hosam Mohamm..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7040
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HOSAM MOHAMMED ZAKARIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-91-181-A)
Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 10, 1999
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hosam Mohammed Zakaria, Appellant Pro Se. Steven John Mulroy, Avi
Samuel Garbow, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Hosam Mohammed Zakaria appeals the district court’s order
denying his “Motion to Expand [the] Record . . . [and] to Preserve
Evidence . . . [and] to Recall the [Court’s June 10, 1999] Order
and Opinion Denying Relief Pursuant to Rule 60(b)6)” of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. We have reviewed the record and the dis-
trict court’s opinion and order and find no reversible error. See
United States v. Williams,
674 F.2d 310, 312 (4th Cir. 1982). We
deny Zakaria’s motions for general relief and to file an addendum
to the appendix. 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