Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Wedington, 95-7384 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7384 Visitors: 61
Filed: Jan. 24, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7384 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CALVIN SCOTT WEDINGTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CR-82-86, CA-95-2081-K) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Scott W
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7384 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CALVIN SCOTT WEDINGTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CR-82-86, CA-95-2081-K) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Scott Wedington, Appellant Pro Se. Maury S. Epner, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying re- lief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion and requiring Appellant to pay a filing fee on all future 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motions, unless Appellant can show good cause to the contrary. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Wedington, Nos. CR-82-86; CA-95- 2081-K (D. Md. Aug. 11, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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. AFFIRMED 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