Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Sorto, 99-7309 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-7309 Visitors: 14
Filed: Dec. 22, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7309 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARIO SORTO, Defendant - Appellant.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-96-251-A, CA-99-854-AM) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 22, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublish
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7309 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARIO SORTO, Defendant - Appellant.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-96-251-A, CA-99-854-AM) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 22, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario Sorto, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mario Sorto seeks to appeal the district court’s orders deny- ing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Sorto, Nos. CR-96-251-A; CA-99-854-AM (E.D. Va. July 1 & Sept. 9, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials 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