Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Gadson, 96-7912 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7912 Visitors: 11
Filed: Mar. 13, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7912 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY PAT GADSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-99-HAR, CA-96-2333-HAR) Submitted: February 27, 1997 Decided: March 13, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Pat
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7912 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY PAT GADSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-99-HAR, CA-96-2333-HAR) Submitted: February 27, 1997 Decided: March 13, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Pat Gadson, Appellant Pro Se. Maury S. Epner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders (1) de- nying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, in which he claimed that there is no difference between "cocaine base" and "cocaine" for purposes of the sentencing guidelines and (2) denying his motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. Our review of the record discloses no reversible error and no abuse of discretion. Accord- ingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 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