Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. King, 97-7347 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7347 Visitors: 22
Filed: May 26, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7347 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MAURICE DAVID KING, a/k/a Peanut, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CR-82-401-H, CA-97-914-H) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 26, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7347 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MAURICE DAVID KING, a/k/a Peanut, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CR-82-401-H, CA-97-914-H) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 26, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fred Warren Bennett, BENNETT & NATHANS, L.L.P., Greenbelt, Mary- land, for Appellant. Katherine Jacobs Armentrout, Assistant 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, in part, and granting, in part, his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the ap- peal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. King, Nos. CR-82-401-H; CA-97-914-H (D. Md. July 29, 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
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