Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Martin, 99-6353 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6353 Visitors: 24
Filed: Jun. 25, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6353 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FENCEL O’HARA MARTIN, a/k/a Festus, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-88-76-N, CA-97-410-2) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 25, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismiss
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6353 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FENCEL O’HARA MARTIN, a/k/a Festus, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-88-76-N, CA-97-410-2) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 25, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fencel O’Hara Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Dee Griffith, Jr., 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Fencel O’Hara Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Martin, Nos. CR-88-76-N; CA-97-410-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 9, 1999). We dispense with oral argu- ment 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