Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Curtis, 01-6233 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6233 Visitors: 24
Filed: Apr. 23, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6233 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BERTRAND LEVON CURTIS, a/k/a X, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 01-127-CCB) Submitted: March 13, 2001 Decided: April 23, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bertrand Levon Curtis
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6233 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BERTRAND LEVON CURTIS, a/k/a X, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 01-127-CCB) Submitted: March 13, 2001 Decided: April 23, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bertrand Levon Curtis, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, Christine Manuelian, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Balti- more, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Bertrand Leon Curtis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). Assuming Curtis’ claim is not procedurally defaulted, a matter not addressed by the district court and one we do not de- cide, 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. See United States v. Curtis, No. CA-01-127-CCB (D. Md. Jan. 26, 2001). 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
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