Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Johnson, 00-7781 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7781 Visitors: 14
Filed: Jun. 06, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7781 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH JOHNSON, JR., a/k/a Joseph R. Johnson, a/k/a Joe Johnson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-96-180-A) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7781 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH JOHNSON, JR., a/k/a Joseph R. Johnson, a/k/a Joe Johnson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-96-180-A) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joseph Johnson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order deny- ing his post-judgment motions filed in his criminal case and grant- ing his motion to correct the judgment and conviction order. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Johnson, No. CR-96-180-A (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 11, 2000; entered Oct. 16, 2000). 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. 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