Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Patterson, 98-7547 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7547 Visitors: 2
Filed: May 05, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7547 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICHARD M. PATTERSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-97-60-A, CA-98-355-AM) Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 5, 1999 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7547 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICHARD M. PATTERSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-97-60-A, CA-98-355-AM) Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 5, 1999 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Durbin Hughes, IV, WADE & HUGHES, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Michael Edward Rich, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTOR- NEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Richard M. Patterson appeals 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. Patterson, Nos. CR-97- 60-A; CA-98-355-AM (E.D. Va. Oct. 8, 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
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