Filed: Apr. 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7570 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FRANK N. GOODWIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-89-288) Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 19, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7570 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FRANK N. GOODWIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-89-288) Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 19, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opin..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7570 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FRANK N. GOODWIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-89-288) Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 19, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank N. Goodwin, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Nance Nicholson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Frank Goodwin seeks to appeal the district court’s order de- nying relief on his motion purportedly filed under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 asking the court to correct a clerical error in its judgment. 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. Goodwin, No. CR-89-288 (E.D. Va. Oct. 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. DISMISSED 2