Filed: Mar. 15, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7188 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALFRED IBIDA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge; Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-266-JFM, CA- 98-1726-B) Submitted: March 9, 2000 Decided: March 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7188 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALFRED IBIDA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge; Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-266-JFM, CA- 98-1726-B) Submitted: March 9, 2000 Decided: March 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7188 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALFRED IBIDA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge; Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-266-JFM, CA- 98-1726-B) Submitted: March 9, 2000 Decided: March 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alfred Ibida, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Alfred Ibida seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny- ing his motion for a certificate of appealability. Because Ibida did not timely appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999) motion, he is not entitled to a certificate of appeal- ability. Accordingly, we deny Ibida’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED 2
