Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Nahif Abdul, 19-7177 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-7177 Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7177 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NAHIF ABDUL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00052-GMG-RWT-1) Submitted: December 17, 2019 Decided: December 20, 2019 Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nahif Abdul, Appella
More
                                     UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 19-7177


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

NAHIF ABDUL,

                     Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00052-GMG-RWT-1)


Submitted: December 17, 2019                                Decided: December 20, 2019


Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Nahif Abdul, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Nahif Abdul appeals from the district court’s order denying his post-judgment

motion for appointment of counsel to assist him in filing a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Abdul, No.

3:08-cr-00052-GMG-RWT-1 (N.D.W. Va. July 29, 2019).               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