US v. Jamell Mason
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 3:09-cr-00087-JPB-JES-6, 3:16-cv-00044-JPB-RWT. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999952087]. Mailed to: Appellant. [16-6866]
Appeal: 16-6866
Doc: 9
Filed: 10/21/2016
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6866
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMELL MASON, a/k/a JAH, a/k/a Tremaine Mason,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
District Judge.
(3:09-cr-00087-JPB-JES-6; 3:16-cv-00044-JPBRWT)
Submitted:
October 18, 2016
Decided:
October 21, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jamell Mason, Appellant Pro Se.
Shawn Michael Adkins, Paul
Thomas Camilletti, Erin K. Reisenweber, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Anna Zartler Krasinski, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia; Jarod James Douglas, David
J. Perri, Assistant United States Attorneys, Wheeling, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-6866
Doc: 9
Filed: 10/21/2016
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Jamell Mason appeals the district court’s order accepting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and unauthorized.
have
reviewed
the
record
and
find
no
reversible
We
error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.
United States v. Mason, Nos. 3:09-cr-00087-JPB-JES-6;
3:16-cv-00044-JPB-RWT (N.D. W. Va. June 20, 2016).
We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this
court
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?