Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Wallace, 02-6350 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6350 Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 04, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6350 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CLINTON MATHEW WALLACE, a/k/a Droop, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CR-99- 583, CA-02-174-AMD) Submitted: September 18, 2002 Decided: December 4, 2002 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clinto
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6350 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CLINTON MATHEW WALLACE, a/k/a Droop, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CR-99- 583, CA-02-174-AMD) Submitted: September 18, 2002 Decided: December 4, 2002 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clinton Mathew Wallace, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, James Gerard Pyne, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Clinton Mathew Wallace seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Wallace has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Wallace, Nos. CR-99-583; CA-02-174-AMD (D. Md. Jan. 22, 2002). Accordingly, we deny Wallace’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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
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