Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Idusuyi, 96-6279 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6279 Visitors: 26
Filed: Jul. 31, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6279 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARTINS IDUSUYI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-92-284, CA-95-2403-MJG) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martin
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6279 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARTINS IDUSUYI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-92-284, CA-95-2403-MJG) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martins Idusuyi, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1988), as amended by Antiter- rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1217. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. To the extent Appel- lant's speedy trial claim relates to the original indictment on which he was never tried, we find that no speedy trial claim is applicable, nor did jeopardy attach. To the extent Appellant's speedy trial claim relates to the second indictment on which he was ultimately tried, we find the claim to be without merit. Accord- ingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Idusuyi, Nos. CR-92-284; CA-95-2403-MJG (D. Md. Feb. 1, 1996). 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. AFFIRMED 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