Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Omonogor, 97-6609 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6609 Visitors: 12
Filed: Oct. 16, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6609 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID HARRIS, a/k/a Inch, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-94- 384-L, CA-96-2973-L) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 7, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Harris, Appellant
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6609 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID HARRIS, a/k/a Inch, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-94- 384-L, CA-96-2973-L) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 7, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Katharine Jacobs Armentrout, Assistant 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Appellant failed to provide a transcript of the evidentiary hearing at which the court stated the reasons for denying relief. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2). Appellants proceeding in forma pauperis in § 2255 actions may be provided a transcript at government expense if the transcript is needed to decide issues presented on appeal and the appeal is "not frivolous." 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994). Because we find that a transcript is not necessary, we deny Appellant's motion for preparation of a transcript at government expense, deny a cer- tificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We deny Appel- lant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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