Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Wooden, 97-6460 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6460 Visitors: 13
Filed: May 25, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6460 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HERMAN WOODEN, Defendant - Appellant.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-90-18, CA-96-1591-AM) Submitted: April 28, 2000 Decided: May 25, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6460 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HERMAN WOODEN, Defendant - Appellant.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-90-18, CA-96-1591-AM) Submitted: April 28, 2000 Decided: May 25, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herman Wooden, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Herman Wooden seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny- ing 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 deny a certificate of appealability, deny Wooden’s motions for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Wooden, No. CR-90-18; CA-96-1591-AM (E.D. Va. Mar. 7, 1997). 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
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