Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Kim, 01-6590 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6590 Visitors: 51
Filed: Jul. 05, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6590 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT CHAEGON KIM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-97-117-A, CA-00-1645-AM) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: July 5, 2001 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per cur
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6590 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT CHAEGON KIM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-97-117-A, CA-00-1645-AM) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: July 5, 2001 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Chaegon Kim, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Clifford Chesnut, Assistant United States Attorney, Randy I. Bellows, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Robert Chaegon Kim appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the rec- ord and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Kim, Nos. CR-97-117-A; CA-00-1645-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 7, 2001; filed Mar. 9, 2001, entered Mar. 13, 2001). We dis- pense 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