United States v. Nasim
This text of United States v. Nasim (United States v. Nasim) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7002
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GHULAM MOHAMMED NASIM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR- 88-378-HM, CA-96-777-S)
Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: March 24, 1997
Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ghulam Mohammed Nasim, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying
his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiter- rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-
132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district
court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the
reasoning of the district court. United States v. Nasim, Nos. CR- 88-378-HM; CA-96-777-S (D. Md. May 22, 1996). Appellant's motion
to remand to the district court is denied. 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.
DISMISSED
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Nasim, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-nasim-ca4-1997.