Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Thomas v. United States, 99-6800 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6800 Visitors: 56
Filed: Aug. 26, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6800 MALEAKE THOMAS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-93-36, CA-99-39-H) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6800 MALEAKE THOMAS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-93-36, CA-99-39-H) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maleake Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. David Paul Folmar, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Maleake Thomas appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999).* 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 Thomas v. United States, Nos. CR-93-36; CA-99- 39-H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 13, 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 * While Appellant styled his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, we find that the district court properly construed the motion under § 2255. 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