Filed: Aug. 17, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6705 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY ANTHONY THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-98-111-HNM, CA-00-3317-HNM) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6705 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY ANTHONY THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-98-111-HNM, CA-00-3317-HNM) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6705 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY ANTHONY THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-98-111-HNM, CA-00-3317-HNM) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Anthony Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. James Clarke Howard, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Leroy Anthony Thomas 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. Thomas, Nos. CR-98-111- HNM; CA-00-3317-HNM (D. Md. Mar. 12, 2001). 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 2