Filed: Jul. 14, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6335 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARIAM ZAMZAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CR-96-44-A, CA-98-617-7) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan Shapiro, Alexandria,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6335 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARIAM ZAMZAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CR-96-44-A, CA-98-617-7) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan Shapiro, Alexandria, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6335 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARIAM ZAMZAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CR-96-44-A, CA-98-617-7) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan Shapiro, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Rick A. Mountcastle, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mariam Zamzam seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny- ing her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). 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 dis- trict court. See United States v. Zamzam, Nos. CR-96-44-A; CA-98- 617-7 (W.D. Va. Jan. 27, 1999). 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