Filed: Feb. 09, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7606 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AKYAW AMAGYEI OWUSU, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-94-99-MJG, CA-95-2831-MJG) Submitted: January 23, 1996 Decided: February 9, 1996 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7606 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AKYAW AMAGYEI OWUSU, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-94-99-MJG, CA-95-2831-MJG) Submitted: January 23, 1996 Decided: February 9, 1996 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by u..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7606 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AKYAW AMAGYEI OWUSU, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-94-99-MJG, CA-95-2831-MJG) Submitted: January 23, 1996 Decided: February 9, 1996 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Akyaw Amagyei Owusu, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1988) motion. 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. Owusu, Nos. CR-94-99-MJG; CA-95-2831-MJG (D. Md. Sept. 21, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
