Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Sorto, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Mario Sorto's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion and motion for reconsideration. The appellate court reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error. It denied Sorto's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court in United States v. Sorto, Nos. CR-96-251-A; CA-99-854-AM (E.D. Va. July 1 & Sept. 9, 1999). The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-12-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-7309

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Mario Sorto's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion and motion for reconsideration. The appellate court reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error. It denied Sorto's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court in United States v. Sorto, Nos. CR-96-251-A; CA-99-854-AM (E.D. Va. July 1 & Sept. 9, 1999). The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2 views2 pages

    United States v. Sorto, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Mario Sorto's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion and motion for reconsideration. The appellate court reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error. It denied Sorto's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court in United States v. Sorto, Nos. CR-96-251-A; CA-99-854-AM (E.D. Va. July 1 & Sept. 9, 1999). The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-7309

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MARIO SORTO,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (CR-96-251-A, CA-99-854-AM)

    Submitted:

    December 16, 1999

    Decided:

    December 22, 1999

    Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Mario Sorto, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Mario Sorto seeks to appeal the district courts orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 1999),
    and denying his motion for reconsideration.

    We have reviewed the

    record and the district courts opinions and find no reversible


    error.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

    dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

    See

    United States v. Sorto, Nos. CR-96-251-A; CA-99-854-AM (E.D. Va.


    July 1 & Sept. 9, 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.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like