Filed: Feb. 03, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6680 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN FITZGERALD PRESCOTT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR- 95-323-PJM) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 3, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Fitzgerald Prescott, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6680 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN FITZGERALD PRESCOTT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR- 95-323-PJM) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 3, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Fitzgerald Prescott, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6680
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN FITZGERALD PRESCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR-
95-323-PJM)
Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 3, 1998
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Fitzgerald Prescott, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia,
United States Attorney, Andrew Clayton White, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Steven Michael Dettelbach,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 for a new trial based on his allegations of newly discovered
evidence, the prosecutor's knowing use of perjured testimony, and
the government's violation of the disclosure requirements of Brady
v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83 (1963), and the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C.
ยง 3500 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's
opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. United States v. Prescott, No. CR-
95-323-PJM (D. Md. Apr. 2, 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 deci-
sional process.
AFFIRMED
2