Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Johnson, 99-6414 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6414 Visitors: 3
Filed: Jul. 15, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6414 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEROME JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant.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-90-3331-A) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Johnson, Appellant Pro
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6414 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEROME JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant.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-90-3331-A) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Barry Wasserman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Andrew Levchuk, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: The district court entered an order denying Johnson’s 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999) motion on November 24, 1993. On January 14, 1999, Johnson moved for a “reinstatement of right to appeal.” The district court denied the motion, and Johnson timely appealed. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Johnson, No. CR-90-3331-A (E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 1999). 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. 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