Filed: Feb. 10, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7597 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DINO GILES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CR-94-212-WMN, CA-97-4021-WMN) Submitted: January 19, 1999 Decided: February 10, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dino Giles, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7597 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DINO GILES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CR-94-212-WMN, CA-97-4021-WMN) Submitted: January 19, 1999 Decided: February 10, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dino Giles, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7597 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DINO GILES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CR-94-212-WMN, CA-97-4021-WMN) Submitted: January 19, 1999 Decided: February 10, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dino Giles, Appellant Pro Se. Bonnie S. Greenberg, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dino Giles 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 appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. See United States v. Giles, Nos. CR-94-212-WMN; CA- 97-4021-WMN (D. Md. Aug. 28, 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
