Filed: Feb. 09, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7649 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICK LAWSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR- 89-362-PN, CA-95-2518-S) Submitted: January 23, 1996 Decided: February 9, 1996 Before HALL and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7649 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICK LAWSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR- 89-362-PN, CA-95-2518-S) Submitted: January 23, 1996 Decided: February 9, 1996 Before HALL and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7649 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICK LAWSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR- 89-362-PN, CA-95-2518-S) Submitted: January 23, 1996 Decided: February 9, 1996 Before HALL and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick Lawson, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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. See United States v. Lawson, Nos. CR-89-362-PN; CA-95-2518-S (D. Md. Aug. 30, 1995). We affirm the decision of the district court because Appel- lant's claim is procedurally barred. 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 2
