Case ID: f-appx_15/html/0071-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas A. WILKINSON, III, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward M. Conk, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 00-7779, 01-6175.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2001.
    Decided July 3, 2001.
    Jeffrey Daniel Zimmerman, Alexandria, VA; Marcia Gail Shein, Law Office of Marcia G. Shein, P.C., Decatur, GA, for appellants. David T. Maguire, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, VA, for appellee.
    Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Thomas A. Wilkinson, III, and Edward M. Conk seek to appeal the district court’s order denying their motions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion 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. Wilkinson, Nos. CR-95-68; CA-99-688-R; United States v. Conk, Nos. CR-95-68; CA-99-688-R (E.D.Va. Nov. 22, 2000). We deny Conk’s motions to supplement the appeal. 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.