Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Yang, 01-6544 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6544 Visitors: 15
Filed: Aug. 29, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6544 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KIBUM YANG, a/k/a Danny Yang, Defendant - Appellant. No. 01-6837 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KIIN YANG, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-99-12, CA-01-171-AM, CA-01-187-A) Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: Augu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6544 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KIBUM YANG, a/k/a Danny Yang, Defendant - Appellant. No. 01-6837 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KIIN YANG, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-99-12, CA-01-171-AM, CA-01-187-A) Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 29, 2001 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kibum Yang, Kiin Yang, Appellants Pro Se. LeDora Knight, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Kibum Yang and Kiin Yang seek to appeal the district court’s orders construing their separate petitions for writs of error coram nobis as motions under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001), and denying the motions as untimely under the one-year limitation period. We have reviewed the records and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny cer- tificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Yang, Nos. CR-99-12; CA- 01-171-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 2, 2001), and United States v. Yang, Nos. CR-99-12; CA-01-187-A (E.D. Va. Feb. 7, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly 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