Filed: Mar. 12, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7542 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus COREY STEVEN JOHNSON, a/k/a Little Corey, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-419-JFM, CA-97-1384-JFM) Submitted: February 3, 1998 Decided: March 12, 1998 Before WIDENER, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7542 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus COREY STEVEN JOHNSON, a/k/a Little Corey, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-419-JFM, CA-97-1384-JFM) Submitted: February 3, 1998 Decided: March 12, 1998 Before WIDENER, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7542 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus COREY STEVEN JOHNSON, a/k/a Little Corey, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-419-JFM, CA-97-1384-JFM) Submitted: February 3, 1998 Decided: March 12, 1998 Before WIDENER, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corey Steven Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Moss Ringler, Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Mary- land, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap- pealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Johnson, Nos. CR-93-419-JFM; CA-97-1384-JFM (D. Md. Sept. 30, 1997). We deny the motion for stay and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2