Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Baggett, 99-6852 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6852 Visitors: 35
Filed: Aug. 26, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6852 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DEIDRE L. BAGGETT, a/k/a DeDe, a/k/a Deidre L. Willingham, 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-91-161-A, CA-99-736-AM) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING,* Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senio
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6852 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DEIDRE L. BAGGETT, a/k/a DeDe, a/k/a Deidre L. Willingham, 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-91-161-A, CA-99-736-AM) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING,* Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Deidre L. Baggett, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Smythers, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Victoria Boros Major, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. * Judge King did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (1994). Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Deidre Baggett appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 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 certifi- cate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Baggett, Nos. CR-91-161- A; CA-99-736-AM (E.D. Va. May 25, 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
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