Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Garner, 01-6129 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6129 Visitors: 21
Filed: Jul. 11, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Filed: July 11, 2001 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6129 (CR-98-53-CCB, CA-00-1565-CCB) United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus Marvin Beeachie Garner, Defendant - Appellant. O R D E R The court amends its opinion filed July 3, 2001, as follows: On the cover sheet, section 5 - the panel information is corrected to read: “Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.” For the Court - By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Cle
More
Filed: July 11, 2001 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6129 (CR-98-53-CCB, CA-00-1565-CCB) United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus Marvin Beeachie Garner, Defendant - Appellant. O R D E R The court amends its opinion filed July 3, 2001, as follows: On the cover sheet, section 5 -- the panel information is corrected to read: “Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.” For the Court - By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6129 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARVIN BEEACHIE GARNER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR- 98-53-CCB, CA-00-1565-CCB) Submitted: June 20, 2001 Decided: July 3, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marvin Beeachie Garner, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Lee Evans, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Marvin Beeachie Garner seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Garner, Nos. CR-98-53- CCB; CA-00-1565-CCB (D. Md. Dec. 6, 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. DISMISSED 3
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