The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-7302•United States of America v. Mark Nathaniel Chapman
01-7302Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 19, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7302
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARK NATHANIEL CHAPMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-97-478-AW, CA-00-2695-AW)
Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 19, 2001
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Nathaniel Chapman, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Barbara
Suzanne Skalla, Assistant United States Attorney, Deborah A.
Johnston, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Mary-
land, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Mark Nathaniel Chapman seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-
ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif-
icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of
the district court. See United States v. Chapman, Nos. CR-97-478-
AW; CA-00-2695-AW (D. Md. July 13, 2001). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.