Filed: Feb. 18, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7453 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. BERNARD GIBSON, SR., a/k/a Bernard Willis, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:94-cr-00454-PJM-2) Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 18, 2011 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7453 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. BERNARD GIBSON, SR., a/k/a Bernard Willis, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:94-cr-00454-PJM-2) Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 18, 2011 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpub..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7453 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. BERNARD GIBSON, SR., a/k/a Bernard Willis, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:94-cr-00454-PJM-2) Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 18, 2011 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Gibson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bernard Gibson, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying his self-styled Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Gibson, No. 8:94-cr-00454-PJM-2 (D. Md. Oct. 8, 2010). 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
