Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Salami, 97-6257 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6257 Visitors: 16
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6257 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALHADJI SALAMI, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
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                            UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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