Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion dismissing Mariam Zamzam's appeal of a district court's denial of her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error. It therefore denied Zamzam's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning as explained in United States v. Zamzam. The appellate court determined oral arguments were not necessary because the case details were clear based on the materials provided.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-07-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-6335

    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    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion dismissing Mariam Zamzam's appeal of a district court's denial of her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error. It therefore denied Zamzam's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning as explained in United States v. Zamzam. The appellate court determined oral arguments were not necessary because the case details were clear based on the materials provided.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion dismissing Mariam Zamzam's appeal of a district court's denial of her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error. It therefore denied Zamzam's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning as explained in United States v. Zamzam. The appellate court determined oral arguments were not necessary because the case details were clear based on the materials provided.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-6335

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MARIAM ZAMZAM,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge.
    (CR-96-44-A, CA-98-617-7)

    Submitted:

    July 8, 1999

    Decided:

    July 14, 1999

    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Jonathan Shapiro, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
    Rick A.
    Mountcastle, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon,
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Mariam Zamzam seeks to appeal the district courts order denying her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 1999).
    We have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion 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. Zamzam, Nos. CR-96-44-A; CA-98-

    617-7 (W.D. Va. Jan. 27, 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