Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Fowler, 96-4512 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-4512 Visitors: 18
Filed: Oct. 23, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-4512 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ADRIAN FOWLER, Defendant - Appellant. No. 98-6095 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ADRIAN FOWLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-129, CA-97-445) Submitted: August 18, 1998 Decided: October 23, 1998 Before ERVI
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-4512 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ADRIAN FOWLER, Defendant - Appellant. No. 98-6095 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ADRIAN FOWLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-129, CA-97-445) Submitted: August 18, 1998 Decided: October 23, 1998 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. No. 96-4512 affirmed and No. 98-6095 dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert M. Simels, ROBERT M. SIMELS, P.C., New York, New York, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Appellant Adrian Fowler appeals his convictions and sentence for various drug trafficking and money laundering offenses entered pursuant to a plea agreement (No. 96- 4512) and the court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) (No. 98-6095). Finding no reversible error, we affirm Fowler’s convic- tions and sentence in No. 96-4512 and deny a certificate of appeal- ability and dismiss his appeal in No. 98-6095. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. No. 96-4512, AFFIRMED No. 98-6095, 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