Court Opinion

ID: 996698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:54:23.224926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:17.814515
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 97-7784

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

KEVIN L. STODDARD,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting
by designation. (CR-93-437-DKC, CA-96-429-HNM)

Submitted:   September 30, 1998           Decided:   October 19, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin L. Stoddard, Appellant Pro Se. William Warren Hamel, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Kevin L. Stoddard appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reason-

ing of the district court. See United States v. Stoddard, Nos. CR-

93-437-DKC; CA-96-429-HNM (D. Md. Oct. 24, 1997); see also Lindh v.

Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-

terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

                                                          AFFIRMED

                                2