Filed: Apr. 16, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6125 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DARRELL RHAMES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR- 97-217-S, CA-00-3749-S) Submitted: March 30, 2001 Decided: April 16, 2001 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6125 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DARRELL RHAMES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR- 97-217-S, CA-00-3749-S) Submitted: March 30, 2001 Decided: April 16, 2001 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6125 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DARRELL RHAMES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR- 97-217-S, CA-00-3749-S) Submitted: March 30, 2001 Decided: April 16, 2001 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrell Rhames, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Darrell Rhames appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (1994) after construing it as a motion to vacate or set aside his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the ap- peal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Rhames, Nos. CR-97-217-S; CA-00-3749-S (D. Md. filed Jan. 3, 2001, entered Jan. 4, 2001). 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