Filed: Aug. 01, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7571 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KARIM FARUQ, a/k/a Charles Williams, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR- 91-217-K, CA-99-2363-CCB) Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 1, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kari
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7571 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KARIM FARUQ, a/k/a Charles Williams, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR- 91-217-K, CA-99-2363-CCB) Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 1, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karim..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7571 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KARIM FARUQ, a/k/a Charles Williams, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR- 91-217-K, CA-99-2363-CCB) Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 1, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karim Faruq, Appellant Pro Se. Katharine Jacobs Armentrout, As- sistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Karim Faruq seeks to appeal the district court’s order dis- missing without prejudice his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). 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 rea- soning of the district court. See United States v. Faruq, Nos. CR- 91-217-K; CA-99-2363-CCB (D. Md. Aug. 31, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2