Filed: Jun. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6363 MARION SHAWN ANDERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-03880-WMN) Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 23, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marion Shawn Anderson, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6363 MARION SHAWN ANDERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-03880-WMN) Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 23, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marion Shawn Anderson, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6363 MARION SHAWN ANDERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-03880-WMN) Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 23, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marion Shawn Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marion Shawn Anderson appeals a district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, while we grant Anderson’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Anderson v. United States, No. 1:14- cv-03880-WMN (D. Md. Dec. 18, 2014). 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
