Filed: Dec. 06, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7131 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SOLOMAN HAM, a/k/a Charles R. Brewer, a/k/a Soloman Hamm, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-90-53, CA-96-160-2) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 6, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7131 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SOLOMAN HAM, a/k/a Charles R. Brewer, a/k/a Soloman Hamm, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-90-53, CA-96-160-2) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 6, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7131 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SOLOMAN HAM, a/k/a Charles R. Brewer, a/k/a Soloman Hamm, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-90-53, CA-96-160-2) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 6, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Soloman Ham, Appellant Pro Se. Marcus John Davis, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Soloman Ham seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. According- ly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Ham, Nos. CR-90-53; CA-96-160-2 (E.D. Va. May 4, 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. DISMISSED 2