Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Peeler, 00-7130 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7130 Visitors: 16
Filed: Nov. 15, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7130 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES TYRONE PEELER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge; Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-96-379-PJM, CA-99-3646-HNM) Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. A
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7130 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES TYRONE PEELER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge; Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-96-379-PJM, CA-99-3646-HNM) Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Tyrone Peeler, Appellant Pro Se. Ranganath Manthripragada, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles Tyrone Peeler appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000), and denying his subsequent motions for tran- scripts and discovery materials. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Ac- cordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Peeler, Nos. CR-96-379-PJM; CA-99-3646-HNM (D. Md. May 8 & July 6, 2000). 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. AFFIRMED 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