US v. Wendell Johnson


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [1000089402-2]. Originating case number: 7:04-cr-00128-MFU-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000105979]. Mailed to: Appellant. [17-6197]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6197 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/23/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6197 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WENDELL ANTONIO JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:04-cr-00128-MFU-1) Submitted: June 20, 2017 Decided: June 23, 2017 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wendell Antonio Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia; Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-6197 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/23/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Wendell Antonio Johnson pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base and related offenses, and the district court sentenced him to 300 months’ imprisonment. On direct appeal, we affirmed in part and dismissed in part. United States v. Johnson, 259 F. App’x 542, 543-45 (4th Cir. 2007) (No. 05-5176). In February 2017, Johnson filed a second notice of appeal of the same criminal judgment. Because we previously affirmed this criminal judgment, we dismiss the appeal as duplicative, and we deny his motion to place his appeal in abeyance pending a decision on his state court motion. 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 in the decisional process. DISMISSED 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?