Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Washington, 19-1290 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-1290 Visitors: 17
Filed: Jun. 06, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6380 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TROY TERRELL WASHINGTON, a/k/a Antonio Williams, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR- 96-175, CA-99-2726) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6380 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TROY TERRELL WASHINGTON, a/k/a Antonio Williams, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR- 96-175, CA-99-2726) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy Terrell Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory Welsh, Assistant United States Attorney, Katharine Jacobs Armentrout, Assistant United States Attorney, Philip S. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Lynne Ann Battaglia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Troy Terrell Washington 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 a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Washington, Nos. CR-96-175; CA- 99-2726 (D. Md. Nov. 16, 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
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