Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Pinkett, 96-7620 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7620 Visitors: 4
Filed: Apr. 22, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7620 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROWAN G. PINKETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-487-A, CA-96-1386-AM) Submitted: March 18, 1997 Decided: April 22, 1997 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. R
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7620 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROWAN G. PINKETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-487-A, CA-96-1386-AM) Submitted: March 18, 1997 Decided: April 22, 1997 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rowan G. Pinkett, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Clifford Chesnut, As- sistant 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Pinkett, Nos. CR-95-487-A; CA-96-1386-AM (E.D. Va. Oct. 3, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED * Although not expressly addressed by the district judge, Ap- pellant's claim that he was misadvised by counsel as to the maximum possible sentence is belied by the plea agreement. 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