Filed: Feb. 27, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7609 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EKPO EDEM UMOH, a/k/a Perry Umoh, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-95-238-A, CA-96-645-AM) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 27, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7609 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EKPO EDEM UMOH, a/k/a Perry Umoh, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-95-238-A, CA-96-645-AM) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 27, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed b..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7609 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EKPO EDEM UMOH, a/k/a Perry Umoh, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-95-238-A, CA-96-645-AM) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 27, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ekpo Edem Umoh, Appellant Pro Se. Nash Whitney Schott, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1994), amended by Antiter- rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. 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 the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Umoh, Nos. CR-95- 238-A; CA-96-645-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 17, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2