Filed: Jul. 17, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7200 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICK KNOWLES PINKETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-91- 491-L, CA-97-655-L) Submitted: June 9, 1998 Decided: July 17, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick Knowles Pinkett
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7200 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICK KNOWLES PINKETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-91- 491-L, CA-97-655-L) Submitted: June 9, 1998 Decided: July 17, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick Knowles Pinkett,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7200 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICK KNOWLES PINKETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-91- 491-L, CA-97-655-L) Submitted: June 9, 1998 Decided: July 17, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick Knowles Pinkett, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap- pealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Pinkett, Nos. CR-91-491-L, CA-97-655-L (D. Md. Aug. 8, 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. DISMISSED 2
