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)
99-7510•United States of America v. Arnold Jackson
99-7510Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 24, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7510
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ARNOLD JACKSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge;
Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-95-
349, CA-98-3128-HNM)
Submitted: February 8, 2000 Decided: February 24, 2000
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arnold Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Robert Mason Thomas, Jr.,
Odessa Palmer Jackson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Green-
belt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Arnold Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order de-
nying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999).
We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and
find no reversible error. Consequently, we affirm on the reasoning
of the district court. See United States v. Jackson, Nos. CR-95-
349; CA-98-3128-HNM (D. Md. Oct. 5, 1999). 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.