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)
09-7575•United States of America v. Emmanuel Thad Ereme
09-7575Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 28, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7575
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
EMMANUEL THAD EREME,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:02-cr-00478-PJM-2; 8:08-cv-00671-PJM)
Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary E. Bair, Erica J. Sutter, BENNETT & BAIR, LLC, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Adam K. Ake, Deborah Johnston, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel Thad Ereme was sentenced to 144 months in
prison after a jury convicted him of conspiracy to dispense,
distribute and possess with intent to distribute Schedule II
controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006),
and several counts of unlawfully dispensing various Schedule II
controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(2006). After the district court denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(West Supp. 2009) motion, the district court granted Ereme’s
motion for a certificate of appealability. We have reviewed the
record and the district court’s order and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See
United States v. Ereme, Nos. 8:02-cr-00478-PJM-2; 8:08-cv-00671-
PJM (D. Md. filed July 22, 2009; entered July 23, 2009). 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.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.