Filed: Jun. 02, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7328 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES W. BAXTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CR-93-122-WN, CA-97-262-WMN) Submitted: March 3, 1998 Decided: June 2, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles W. Baxter, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7328 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES W. BAXTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CR-93-122-WN, CA-97-262-WMN) Submitted: March 3, 1998 Decided: June 2, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles W. Baxter, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7328
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES W. BAXTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
(CR-93-122-WN, CA-97-262-WMN)
Submitted: March 3, 1998 Decided: June 2, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles W. Baxter, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Charles W. Baxter seeks to appeal the district
court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255
(West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the dis-
trict court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substan-
tially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v.
Baxter, Nos. CR-93-122-WN; CA-97-262-WMN (D. Md. Aug. 20, 1997). We
find Baxter's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding
the allegedly duplicitous indictment meritless because he failed to
establish that he was prejudiced by counsel's performance. See
Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984). We dis-
pense 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