Filed: Oct. 21, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6851 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY GRANDISON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CR-79-189-H, CA-97-1359-H) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 21, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Grandi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6851 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY GRANDISON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CR-79-189-H, CA-97-1359-H) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 21, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Grandis..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6851 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY GRANDISON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CR-79-189-H, CA-97-1359-H) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 21, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Grandison, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his peti- tion for writ of error coram nobis. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Grandison, Nos. CR-79-189-H; CA-97-1359-H (D. Md. May 1, 1997). 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
