Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Pitt, 01-7880 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7880 Visitors: 49
Filed: Mar. 22, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7880 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DONTE JAVON PITT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CR-96-36-AW, CA-00-1566-AW) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7880 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DONTE JAVON PITT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CR-96-36-AW, CA-00-1566-AW) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fred Warren Bennett, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Odessa Palmer Jackson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Donte Javon Pitt seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Pitt’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Pitt, Nos. CR-96-36-AW; CA-00-1566-AW (D. Md. filed Aug. 31, 2001 & entered Sept. 4, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials 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