Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Al-Muwwakkil, 09-7425 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-7425 Visitors: 21
Filed: Oct. 22, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7425 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. AKEEM LABEEB AL-MUWWAKKIL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (4:01-cr-00092-RGD-1; 4:08-cv-00126-RGD) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 22, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7425 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. AKEEM LABEEB AL-MUWWAKKIL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (4:01-cr-00092-RGD-1; 4:08-cv-00126-RGD) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 22, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Akeem Labeeb Al-Muwwakkil, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Woodrow Hoffman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Akeem Labeeb Al-Muwwakkil appeals the district court’s order denying his Rule 60(b) motion of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in which Al-Muwwakkil attempted to revisit an order issued during his criminal trial denying a motion to suppress. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Al-Muwwakkil, No. 4:01-cr- 00092-RGD-1 (E.D. Va. July 15, 2009). 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. AFFIRMED 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