Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Zaki, 97-7455 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7455 Visitors: 36
Filed: Mar. 19, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7455 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OMAR SHAHID ZAKI, a/k/a Edward Shahid Zaki, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-503-A, CA-97-1088-AM) Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 19, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7455 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OMAR SHAHID ZAKI, a/k/a Edward Shahid Zaki, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-503-A, CA-97-1088-AM) Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 19, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Omar Shahid Zaki, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Edward Rich, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Zaki, Nos. CR-94-503-A; CA-97-1088-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 17, 1997). We also deny Appellant's motion for release on bail pending appeal and his motion to expedite consideration of his motion for release. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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