Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Wilkerson, 01-6816 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6816 Visitors: 30
Filed: Dec. 21, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6816 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAHNAUN A. WILKERSON, a/k/a Ray Ray, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-99-385) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 21, 2001 Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary E. Co
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6816 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAHNAUN A. WILKERSON, a/k/a Ray Ray, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-99-385) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 21, 2001 Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary E. Cox, BLAIR & LEE, P.C., Hyattsville, Maryland, for Appel- lant. Kenneth E. Melson, United States Attorney, T.C. Spencer Pryor, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Gene Rossi, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Rahnaun Andre Wilkerson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reduce his sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b), based upon substantial assistance, and his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court’s opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Wilkerson, No. CR-99-385 (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 5, 2001 & entered Apr. 6, 2001). 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 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