Filed: Nov. 25, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6868 ANTHONY AARON NIXON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-178-1-FNS-ALL) Submitted: October 24, 2003 Decided: November 25, 2003 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6868 ANTHONY AARON NIXON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-178-1-FNS-ALL) Submitted: October 24, 2003 Decided: November 25, 2003 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6868 ANTHONY AARON NIXON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-178-1-FNS-ALL) Submitted: October 24, 2003 Decided: November 25, 2003 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Aaron Nixon, Appellant Pro Se. James G. Warwick, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Anthony Aaron Nixon appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for collateral relief challenging the calculation of a sentence of imprisonment imposed in 1997. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Nixon v. United States, No. CR-96-178-1-FNS-ALL (D. Md. May 12, 2003). 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
