Filed: Apr. 29, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8061 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARTY LORENZO WRIGHT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:95-cr-00044-TEM-TEM-1) Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 29, 2013 Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8061 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARTY LORENZO WRIGHT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:95-cr-00044-TEM-TEM-1) Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 29, 2013 Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8061 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARTY LORENZO WRIGHT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:95-cr-00044-TEM-TEM-1) Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 29, 2013 Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marty Lorenzo Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Smythers, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marty Lorenzo Wright appeals the district court’s order denying his “Writ of Coram Nobis.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Wright, No. 4:95-cr-00044-TEM-TEM-1 (E.D. Va. Nov. 20, 2012). 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
