Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Gunaratna, 95-7461 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7461 Visitors: 26
Filed: Apr. 04, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7461 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BULATHGE GUNARATNA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CR-86-270-K, CA-95-1470-K) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 4, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7461 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BULATHGE GUNARATNA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CR-86-270-K, CA-95-1470-K) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 4, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bulathge Gunaratna, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Moss Ringler, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. Appellant alleges that a term of supervised release included as part of his sentence was improper under 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(A) (West 1981 & Supp. 1995) (current version at 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(l)(B) (West Supp. 1995)). Appel- lant's claim is without merit, however, because he was sentenced under 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(B) (West 1981 & Supp. 1995) (current version at 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(l)(C)(West Supp. 1995), which allowed for a special parole term. Appellant's motion to expedite and alter time limits is denied. 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
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