Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Trader, 98-7785 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7785 Visitors: 11
Filed: Sep. 09, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7785 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NED TRADER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-368, CA-97-774-B) Submitted: August 31, 1999 Decided: September 9, 1999 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ned Trader, Appel
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7785 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NED TRADER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-368, CA-97-774-B) Submitted: August 31, 1999 Decided: September 9, 1999 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ned Trader, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Manuelian, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ned Trader seeks to appeal an order denying his motion to re- consider following the district court’s denial of Trader’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 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 on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Trader, Nos. CR-93-368, CA-97-774-B (D. Md. Nov. 4, 1998). We also deny Trader’s motion for appointment of appellate counsel. 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