Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Lynch, 98-6337 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6337 Visitors: 10
Filed: Aug. 06, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6337 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEVIN LYNCH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-68, CA-97-1590-JFM) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 6, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ,* Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Lynch, Appellant Pro Se.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6337 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEVIN LYNCH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-68, CA-97-1590-JFM) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 6, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ,* Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Lynch, Appellant Pro Se. John Vincent Geise, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. * Judge Motz did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (1994). Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kevin Lynch 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. Lynch, Nos. CR-93-68; CA-97-1590-JFM (D. Md. Feb. 6, 1998). 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