Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Okpala, 97-6614 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6614 Visitors: 31
Filed: Jan. 09, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Opinion on Rehearing UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6614 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN OKPALA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-91- 452-L, CA-96-2524-L) Submitted: December 23, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and dism
More
Opinion on Rehearing UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6614 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN OKPALA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-91- 452-L, CA-96-2524-L) Submitted: December 23, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Okpala, Appellant Pro Se. Steve Zimmerman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997), and his motions for reconsideration. The district court granted a certificate of appealability as to one issue: "Were Mr. Okpala's due process rights violated during his arrest in Nigeria and extra- dition to the United States?" We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. According, we affirm the issue for which the district court granted a certif- icate of appealability and deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal as to the remaining issues on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Okpala, Nos. CR-92-452-L; CA- 96-2524-L (D. Md. Feb. 27 & Apr. 11 & Apr. 24, 1997). 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. AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART 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