Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Ortiz, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views3 pages
    This document summarizes three separate appeals cases from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Carlos Ortiz, Adrian Scott, and Henry Jones each filed motions under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 seeking to appeal orders denying their motions. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the records and district court opinions and found no reversible error. The appeals court denied certificates of appealability and dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court in each of the three cases.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-09-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6581

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes three separate appeals cases from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Carlos Ortiz, Adrian Scott, and Henry Jones each filed motions under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 seeking to appeal orders denying their motions. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the records and district court opinions and found no reversible error. The appeals court denied certificates of appealability and dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court in each of the three cases.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    0 views3 pages

    United States v. Ortiz, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes three separate appeals cases from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Carlos Ortiz, Adrian Scott, and Henry Jones each filed motions under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 seeking to appeal orders denying their motions. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the records and district court opinions and found no reversible error. The appeals court denied certificates of appealability and dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court in each of the three cases.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 97-6581

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CARLOS ORTIZ,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    No. 97-6661

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ADRIAN SCOTT,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    No. 97-6665

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    HENRY JONES,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge.
    (CR-92-301-S, CA-97-1065-S, CA-97-1182-S, CA-97-1103-S)
    Submitted:

    August 28, 1997

    Decided:

    September 17, 1997

    Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Carlos Ortiz, Adrian Scott, Henry Jones, Appellants Pro Se. Brent
    Jefferson Gurney, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt,
    Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellants seek to appeal the district court's orders denying
    their motions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.
    1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of
    the district court. United States v. Ortiz, Nos. CR-92-301-S; CA97-1065-S (D. Md. Apr. 17, 1997); United States v. Scott, Nos. CR92-301-S; CA-97-1182-S (D. Md. Apr. 24, 1997); United States v.
    Jones, Nos. CR-92-301-S; CA-97-1103-S (D. Md. Apr. 18, 1997). 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