Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Wilkerson, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    Rahnaun Wilkerson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence based on substantial assistance to the government and his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit reviewed briefs and documents from both parties as well as the district court's opinion and reasoning for denying Wilkerson's motions. The Fourth Circuit determined that oral arguments were not necessary because the case details and legal issues were adequately explained in the materials provided.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-12-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-6816

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Rahnaun Wilkerson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence based on substantial assistance to the government and his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit reviewed briefs and documents from both parties as well as the district court's opinion and reasoning for denying Wilkerson's motions. The Fourth Circuit determined that oral arguments were not necessary because the case details and legal issues were adequately explained in the materials provided.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Wilkerson, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Rahnaun Wilkerson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence based on substantial assistance to the government and his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit reviewed briefs and documents from both parties as well as the district court's opinion and reasoning for denying Wilkerson's motions. The Fourth Circuit determined that oral arguments were not necessary because the case details and legal issues were adequately explained in the materials provided.

    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. 01-6816

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    RAHNAUN A. WILKERSON, a/k/a Ray Ray,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
    Judge. (CR-99-385)

    Submitted:

    November 29, 2001

    Decided:

    December 21, 2001

    Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Mary E. Cox, BLAIR & LEE, P.C., Hyattsville, Maryland, for Appellant.
    Kenneth E. Melson, United States Attorney, T.C. Spencer
    Pryor, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Gene Rossi, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Rahnaun Andre Wilkerson appeals the district courts order
    denying his motion to reduce his sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P.
    35(b), based upon substantial assistance, and his motion filed
    under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2001).

    We have reviewed the

    parties briefs, the joint appendix, and the district courts opinion and find no reversible error.
    reasoning of the district court.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the


    United States v. Wilkerson, No.

    CR-99-385 (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 5, 2001 & entered Apr. 6, 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.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like