Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Shah, 99-6605 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6605 Visitors: 105
Filed: Jun. 25, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6605 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SATISH R. SHAH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR- 92-255-HAR, CA-97-2887-CCB) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 25, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opini
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6605 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SATISH R. SHAH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR- 92-255-HAR, CA-97-2887-CCB) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 25, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Satish R. Shah, Appellant Pro Se. Gary Patrick Jordan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Raymond Allen Bonner, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Satish R. Shah seeks to appeal the district court’s order de- nying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999), and his motions for reconsideration of that order. We have re- viewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal- ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Shah, Nos. CR-92-255-HAR; CA-97-2887- CCB (D. Md. Feb. 23, 1999). 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. 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