Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emmanuel Thad EREME, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-05-28
Citations: 380 F. App'x 355
Docket Number: No. 09-7575
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emmanuel Thad EREME, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 380
Pages: 355–356

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emmanuel Thad EREME, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-7575.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 22, 2010.
Decided: May 28, 2010.
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.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 Ereme v. United States, Nos. 8:02-cr-00478-PJM-2; 8:08-cv-00671-PJM, 2009 WL 2225997 (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.