Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Andrew Jackson, 16-6119 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-6119 Visitors: 37
Filed: May 23, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6119 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANDREW CHARLES JACKSON, a/k/a William Benbow, a/k/a Ricky Antonio Bady, a/k/a Sway, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (3:00-cr-00006-JPB-RWT-1; 3:00-cr-00046-JPB- RWT-1) Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 23, 2016 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6119 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANDREW CHARLES JACKSON, a/k/a William Benbow, a/k/a Ricky Antonio Bady, a/k/a Sway, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (3:00-cr-00006-JPB-RWT-1; 3:00-cr-00046-JPB- RWT-1) Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 23, 2016 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew Charles Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Andrew Charles Jackson appeals the district court’s order denying his “motion to void and correct illegal sentence.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Jackson, Nos. 3:00-cr-00006-JPB-RWT-1; 3:00-cr-00046-JPB-RWT-1 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 4, 2016). We deny Jackson’s motion to void judgment and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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