Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07575/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07575-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Emmanuel Thad Ereme
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7575

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

EMMANUEL THAD EREME,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:02-cr-00478-PJM-2; 8:08-cv-00671-PJM)

Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary E. Bair, Erica J. Sutter, BENNETT & BAIR, LLC, Greenbelt, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States 

Attorney, Adam K. Ake, Deborah Johnston, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7575 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Emmanuel Thad Ereme was sentenced to 144 months in 

prison after a jury convicted him of conspiracy to dispense, 

distribute and possess with intent to distribute Schedule II 

controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), 

and several counts of unlawfully dispensing various Schedule II 

controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) 

(2006). After the district court denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2009) motion, the district court granted Ereme’s 

motion for a certificate of appealability. We have reviewed the 

record and the district court’s order and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See

United States v. Ereme, Nos. 8:02-cr-00478-PJM-2; 8:08-cv-00671-

PJM (D. Md. filed July 22, 2009; entered July 23, 2009). 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

Appeal: 09-7575 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 2 of 2