Filed: Feb. 14, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7469 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHRISTIAN E. UBAKANMA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR- 97-108-PJM) Submitted: January 17, 2003 Decided: February 14, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christian E. Ubakanma, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7469 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHRISTIAN E. UBAKANMA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR- 97-108-PJM) Submitted: January 17, 2003 Decided: February 14, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christian E. Ubakanma, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7469
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHRISTIAN E. UBAKANMA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR-
97-108-PJM)
Submitted: January 17, 2003 Decided: February 14, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christian E. Ubakanma, Appellant Pro Se. David Ira Salem, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Christian E. Ubakanma appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion without prejudice
because it was filed prior to the entry of the amended criminal
judgment. Because the dismissal was without prejudice and Ubakanma
could refile his § 2255 motion, his appeal is interlocutory and not
subject to appellate review under Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar
Workers Local 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. 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