Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Burks, 97-7404 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7404 Visitors: 54
Filed: Jan. 28, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7404 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES K. BURKS, JR., a/k/a Howard Theodore Wright, a/k/a Marcus Williams, a/k/a Nathan King, a/k/a Derrick Baxter, a/k/a Marcus Allen, a/k/a Martin Wilson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-460-A, CA-97-613-AM) Submitted: January 1
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7404 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES K. BURKS, JR., a/k/a Howard Theodore Wright, a/k/a Marcus Williams, a/k/a Nathan King, a/k/a Derrick Baxter, a/k/a Marcus Allen, a/k/a Martin Wilson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-460-A, CA-97-613-AM) Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 28, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Jenkins, Jr., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Gordon Dean Kromberg, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997) motion. We have re- viewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabil- ity and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Burks, Nos. CR-93-460-A; CA-97-613-AM (E.D. Va. Aug. 28, 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