Filed: Feb. 18, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7302 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KORD JOHNSON, a/k/a John P. Jones, a/k/a Kent J. Coppage, a/k/a Morris Maslia, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-96-113, CA-97-908) Submitted: January 5, 1999 Decided: February 18, 1999 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Sen
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7302 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KORD JOHNSON, a/k/a John P. Jones, a/k/a Kent J. Coppage, a/k/a Morris Maslia, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-96-113, CA-97-908) Submitted: January 5, 1999 Decided: February 18, 1999 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Seni..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7302 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KORD JOHNSON, a/k/a John P. Jones, a/k/a Kent J. Coppage, a/k/a Morris Maslia, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-96-113, CA-97-908) Submitted: January 5, 1999 Decided: February 18, 1999 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kord Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Philip Rosenberg, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Kord Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny- ing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Johnson, Nos. CR-96- 113, CA-97-908 (E.D. Va. July 30, 1998). 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. DISMISSED 2