Filed: Oct. 23, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7280 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JACK DARRELL CUNNINGHAM, Defendant - Appellant. No. 01-7282 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JACK DARRELL CUNNINGHAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR-96-178-S, CA-01-1988-S) Submitted: October 10, 2001 Decided: October 23,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7280 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JACK DARRELL CUNNINGHAM, Defendant - Appellant. No. 01-7282 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JACK DARRELL CUNNINGHAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR-96-178-S, CA-01-1988-S) Submitted: October 10, 2001 Decided: October 23, 2..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7280 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JACK DARRELL CUNNINGHAM, Defendant - Appellant. No. 01-7282 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JACK DARRELL CUNNINGHAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR-96-178-S, CA-01-1988-S) Submitted: October 10, 2001 Decided: October 23, 2001 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jack Darrell Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, James G. Warwick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jack Darrell Cunningham seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) (No. 01-7280) and his motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (No. 01-7282). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss both appeals on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Cunningham, Nos. CR-178-S; CA-01-1988-S (D. Md. July 9 and July 19, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2