United States v. Frimpong-Manso ( 2000 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                                                    No. 99-7700
    JOHNNIE FRIMPONG-MANSO,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.
    (CR-99-62, CA-99-1650-AM)
    Submitted: March 28, 2000
    Decided: April 18, 2000
    Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Johnnie Frimpong-Manso, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew James
    McKenna, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alex-
    andria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Johnnie Frimpong-Manso seeks to appeal the district court's order
    denying his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp.
    1999). In his § 2255 motion, Frimpong-Manso asserted that counsel
    provided ineffective assistance by failing to (1) timely object to a six-
    point enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
    § 2L2.1(b)(2)(B) (1998), and (2) file a notice of appeal after the court
    overruled the objection to the six-point enhancement. In rejecting
    Frimpong-Manso's second claim, the district court did not have the
    benefit of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 
    120 S. Ct. 1029
     (2000). We therefore grant a certificate of appealability,
    vacate the district court's order, and remand for further proceedings
    in light of Flores-Ortega. We express no opinion on the merits of
    Frimpong-Manso's motion. Finally, 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.
    VACATED AND REMANDED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-7700

Filed Date: 4/18/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014