Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Allison, 97-7584 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7584 Visitors: 13
Filed: Oct. 20, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7584 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KENNETH WARREN ALLISON, Defendant -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-90-446-A, CA-97-649-AM) Submitted: September 29, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7584 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KENNETH WARREN ALLISON, Defendant -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-90-446-A, CA-97-649-AM) Submitted: September 29, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Warren Allison, Appellant Pro Se. Bernard James Apperson, III, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Kenneth Warren Allison 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 cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Allison, Nos. CR-90-446-A; CA-97-649-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 29, 1997). To the extent that Allison challenged the forfeiture of his personal property, however, we note that the dismissal is without prejudice to his filing of a motion for return of seized property pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e). 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