Filed: Mar. 30, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7248 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JOHNNY LYNN BAKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00435-JRS-1; 3:10-cv-00762-JRS) Submitted: March 27, 2012 Decided: March 30, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. D. Craig
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7248 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JOHNNY LYNN BAKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00435-JRS-1; 3:10-cv-00762-JRS) Submitted: March 27, 2012 Decided: March 30, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. D. Craig ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7248
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOHNNY LYNN BAKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:07-cr-00435-JRS-1; 3:10-cv-00762-JRS)
Submitted: March 27, 2012 Decided: March 30, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
D. Craig Hughes, LAW OFFICES OF D. CRAIG HUGHES, Houston, Texas,
for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney,
Elizabeth C. Wu, Assistant United States Attorney, Samuel E.
Fishel, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Lynn Baker appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011)
motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Baker, Nos. 3:07-cr-00435-
JRS-1; 3:10-cv-00762-JRS (E.D. Va. Oct. 20, 2010). 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