Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Edwards, 98-7611 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7611 Visitors: 33
Filed: Jan. 20, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7611 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN AUSTIN EDWARDS, a/k/a Shakim, a/k/a Doquan Cooper, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-94-163, CA-98-225-2) Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 20, 1999 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7611 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN AUSTIN EDWARDS, a/k/a Shakim, a/k/a Doquan Cooper, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-94-163, CA-98-225-2) Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 20, 1999 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Austin Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Austin Edwards seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), and for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Edwards, Nos. CR-94-163; CA-98-225-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 9, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials 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