Filed: Feb. 03, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6257 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALHADJI SALAMI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-90- 252-MJG, CA-94-552-MJG) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 3, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alhadji Salami, Appellan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6257 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALHADJI SALAMI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-90- 252-MJG, CA-94-552-MJG) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 3, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alhadji Salami, Appellant..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6257
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALHADJI SALAMI,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-90-
252-MJG, CA-94-552-MJG)
Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 3, 1998
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alhadji Salami, Appellant Pro Se. Katharine Jacobs Armentrout, As-
sistant 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 his
motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the
record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommenda-
tion of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accord-
ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United
States v. Salami, Nos. CR-90-252-MJG; CA-94-552-MJG (D. Md. Dec.
17, 1996). See Lindh v. Murphy,
521 U.S. ___,
1997 WL 338568 (U.S.
June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). 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 deci-
sional process.
AFFIRMED
2