Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Depasquale, 96-6736 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6736 Visitors: 54
Filed: Dec. 17, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6736 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DALE JAMES DEPASQUALE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-123-H, CA-96-208-H) Submitted: October 31, 1996 Decided: December 17, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dale
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6736 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DALE JAMES DEPASQUALE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-123-H, CA-96-208-H) Submitted: October 31, 1996 Decided: December 17, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dale James Depasquale, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Clayton White, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1994), amended by Antiter- rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. 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 rea- soning of the district court. United States v. Depasquale, Nos. CR-92-123-H; CA-96-208-H (D. Md. Apr. 18, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly 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