United States v. Wilson

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Wilson. Read the opinion of the Court — 135 F.3d 291
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided July 29, 1998·No. 98-6470·Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6470

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SEAN ANDRE WILSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-135, CA-97-1294-JFM)

Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sean Andre Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Katharine Jacobs Armentrout, Assistant 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-

pealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Wilson, Nos. CR-90-135; CA-97-1294-JFM (D.

Md. Jan. 23, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-

rials 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

United States v. Wilson, (4th Cir. 1998).

United States v. Wilson (United States v. Wilson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related