Filed: Feb. 27, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8112 HOSAM MOHAMMED ZAKARIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-181-A) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 27, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hosam Mohamme
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8112 HOSAM MOHAMMED ZAKARIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-181-A) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 27, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hosam Mohammed..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8112 HOSAM MOHAMMED ZAKARIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-181-A) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 27, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hosam Mohammed Zakaria, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Hosam Mohammed Zakaria appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. Zakaria v. United States, No. CR-91- 181-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 6, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
