Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Smith, 99-7521 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-7521 Visitors: 3
Filed: Aug. 17, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7521 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEMBA NIAMBI SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-162, CA-97-411-2-02) Submitted: April 25, 2000 Decided: August 17, 2000 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished pe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7521 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEMBA NIAMBI SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-162, CA-97-411-2-02) Submitted: April 25, 2000 Decided: August 17, 2000 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald James Munro, Heather Hanson Anderson, SHEA & GARDNER, Washington, D.C.; George Kendall, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, New York, New York; Laura Ellen Hankins, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kemba Niambi Smith appeals the district court’s orders denying her motions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s orders 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. Smith, Nos. CR-93-162; CA-97-411-2-02 (E.D. Va. Aug. 4 & Oct. 1, 1999). 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
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