Filed: Oct. 02, 2001
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6560 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus COREY LORENZO WOODFOLK, Defendant - Appellant. No. 01-6621 COREY LORENZO WOODFOLK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-419-JFM, CA-01-727-JFM) Submitted: August 24, 2001 Decided: Octobe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6560 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus COREY LORENZO WOODFOLK, Defendant - Appellant. No. 01-6621 COREY LORENZO WOODFOLK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-419-JFM, CA-01-727-JFM) Submitted: August 24, 2001 Decided: October..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6560 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus COREY LORENZO WOODFOLK, Defendant - Appellant. No. 01-6621 COREY LORENZO WOODFOLK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-419-JFM, CA-01-727-JFM) Submitted: August 24, 2001 Decided: October 2, 2001 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corey Lorenzo Woodfolk, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Corey Lorenzo Woodfolk appeals the district court’s orders de- nying his motion to vacate judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) and denying his petition for writ of mandamus. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Woodfolk, No. CR-93-419-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 22, 2001); Woodfolk v. United States, No. CA-01-727-JFM (D. Md. Apr. 2, 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. AFFIRMED 2