Filed: Feb. 08, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7760 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GHULAM MOHAMMED NASIM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge; Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge; Herbert F. Murray, Senior District Judge. (CR-88-378-HM, CA-95-2816-S) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, C
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7760 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GHULAM MOHAMMED NASIM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge; Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge; Herbert F. Murray, Senior District Judge. (CR-88-378-HM, CA-95-2816-S) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Ci..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7760 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GHULAM MOHAMMED NASIM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge; Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge; Herbert F. Murray, Senior District Judge. (CR-88-378-HM, CA-95-2816-S) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ghulam Mohammed Nasim, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Nasim, No. CR-88-378-HM; CA-95-2816-S (D. Md. Sept. 25, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
