Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Dana Maurice Jackson, 98-4619 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-4619 Visitors: 16
Filed: Jul. 13, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-4619 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DANA MAURICE JACKSON, a/k/a Moonie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-132-JFM) Submitted: May 6, 1999 Decided: July 13, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark B. Martin, M.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-4619 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DANA MAURICE JACKSON, a/k/a Moonie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-132-JFM) Submitted: May 6, 1999 Decided: July 13, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark B. Martin, M. Cristina Gutierrez, REDMOND, BURGIN & GUTIERREZ, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Joseph L. Evans, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dana Maurice Jackson appeals his convictions, arising out of an armored car robbery, for conspiracy to obstruct, delay or affect commerce, interference with commerce by threats or violence, and aiding and abetting the same, and use of a firearm in the commis- sion of crime of violence, and aiding and abetting the same. On appeal he alleges that the district court erred by: (1) precluding from evidence the fact that his co-defendant may have been involved in a subsequent armored car robbery; (2) denying his motion to suppress a calendar seized in the search of his home; and (3) by enhancing his sentence by four levels rather than two levels under the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, § 2B3.1(b)(4) (1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s actions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm Jackson’s convictions and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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