Filed: Jul. 31, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7043 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DORIS JEAN PREVOST, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CR-94-70-WMN, CA-96-209-WMN) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: July 31, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Doris Jean Prevost, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7043 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DORIS JEAN PREVOST, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CR-94-70-WMN, CA-96-209-WMN) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: July 31, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Doris Jean Prevost, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7043
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DORIS JEAN PREVOST,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
(CR-94-70-WMN, CA-96-209-WMN)
Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: July 31, 1998
Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Doris Jean Prevost, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying her
motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998)). 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. Prevost, Nos. CR-94-70-WMN; CA-96-209-WMN
(D. Md. May 7, 1997). 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 decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2