United States v. Frimpong-Manso
United States v. Frimpong-Manso
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 99-7700 JOHNNIE FRIMPONG-MANSO, Defendant-Appellant.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 _________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.