Epps v. United States

Jul 23, 1990
90-6268
Reporters:
Before:
Sprouse, Wilkins, Butzner (per curiam)

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Appeals from the United ‍‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‍States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Joseph H. Young, District Judge. (CR No. 85-547-Y; CA-89-808-Y; CA-89-1600-Y)

Leonard Epps, Maurice C. Proctor, Sr., appellants pro se.

Breckinridge Long Willcox, United States Attorney, Catherine Curtis Blake, Peter M. Semel, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Md., for appellee.

729 F.Supp. 473.

AFFIRMED.

Before SPROUSE and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, ‍‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‍Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

In these consolidated appeals Leonard Epps and Maurice Proctor appeal from the district court‘s orders refusing relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. Epps also appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Our review of the record and the district court‘s opinion discloses that these appeals are without merit. ‍‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‍Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Epps v. United States, CR No. 85-547-Y; C/A No. 89-808-Y (D.Md. Jan. 18, 1990). Proctor v. United States, CR No. 85-547-Y; C/A No. 89-1600-Y (D.Md. Jan. 22, 1990). We deny appellants’ separate motions to deconsolidate these appeals* and 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.

2

No. 90-6268, AFFIRMED.

3

No. 90-6288, AFFIRMED.

Notes

*
We have thoroughly reviewed all the issues raised by each appellant