United States v. Showell ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7285
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL SHOWELL,
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-97-424, CA-99-3561-HNM)
Submitted: December 5, 2000 Decided: December 19, 2000
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Showell, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Meadowcroft Erisman, As-
sistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Showell appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) and asserts
only one claim on appeal: that he received ineffective assistance
of counsel when counsel did not note a requested appeal. The
district court has granted a certificate of appealability as to
Showell’s claim that his attorney failed to note an appeal. We
have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal-
ability as to all remaining claims and dismiss the entire appeal on
the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Showell,
Nos. CR-97-424; CA-99-3561-HNM (D. Md. Aug. 9, 2000). 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.
DISMISSED
2