Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Toliver, 96-6221 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6221 Visitors: 36
Filed: Jan. 07, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Filed: January 7, 1997 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6221 (CR-89-391-JFM, CA-95-3272-JFM) United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus Colbert Toliver, Defendant - Appellant. O R D E R The Court amends its opinion filed October 23, 1996, as follows: On the cover sheet, section 3, line 3 - the district court's number is corrected to read "CR-89- 391-JFM." For the Court - By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More
Filed: January 7, 1997 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6221 (CR-89-391-JFM, CA-95-3272-JFM) United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus Colbert Toliver, Defendant - Appellant. O R D E R The Court amends its opinion filed October 23, 1996, as follows: On the cover sheet, section 3, line 3 -- the district court's number is corrected to read "CR-89- 391-JFM." For the Court - By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6221 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus COLBERT TOLIVER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-89-391-JFM, CA-95-3272-JFM) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 23, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Colbert Toliver, Appellant Pro Se. Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1994) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Toliver, Nos. CR-89-891- JFM; CA-95-3272-JFM (D. Md. Jan. 8, 1996). 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. DISMISSED 3
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