Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    Emmanuel O. Nwolise v. United States, 989 F.2d 494, 4th Cir. (1993)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Emmanuel Nwolise appealed the district court's denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows federal prisoners to challenge their sentences. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling without needing oral arguments. The Fourth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the district court, which had found Nwolise's appeal to be without merit.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Emmanuel O. Nwolise v. United States, 989 F.2d 494, 4th Cir. (1993)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Emmanuel Nwolise appealed the district court's denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows federal prisoners to challenge their sentences. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling without needing oral arguments. The Fourth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the district court, which had found Nwolise's appeal to be without merit.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1993-03-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 989 F.2d 494 Docket: 92-6591

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Emmanuel Nwolise appealed the district court's denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows federal prisoners to challenge their sentences. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling without needing oral arguments. The Fourth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the district court, which had found Nwolise's appeal to be without merit.

    Copyright:

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

    Emmanuel O. Nwolise v. United States, 989 F.2d 494, 4th Cir. (1993)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Emmanuel Nwolise appealed the district court's denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows federal prisoners to challenge their sentences. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling without needing oral arguments. The Fourth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the district court, which had found Nwolise's appeal to be without merit.

    Copyright:

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

    989 F.

    2d 494

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Emmanuel O. NWOLISE, Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 92-6591.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 1, 1993
    Decided: March 23, 1993

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
    at Baltimore. Joseph H. Young, Senior District Judge. (CA-91-2230-Y,
    CR-85-177-Y)
    Emmanuel O. Nwolise, Appellant Pro Se.
    Thomas Michael DiBiagio, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
    ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    D.Md.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    OPINION
    1

    Emmanuel O. Nwolise appeals from the district court's order refusing relief

    under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's
    opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on
    the reasoning of the district court. Nwolise v. United States, No. CA-91-2230Y, No. CR-85-177-Y (D. Md. May 29, 1992). 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