The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
22-6019•United States of America v. Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya, a/k/a Norman Abbott
22-6019Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 27, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAPAT AHDAWAN NABAYA, a/k/a Norman Abbott,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:17-cr-00003-MHL-1)
Submitted: May 24, 2022 Decided: May 27, 2022
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya was convicted of retaliating against a federal officer by
false claim and making a false statement in bankruptcy, and the district court sentenced
him to 71 months’ imprisonment. In March 2019, we affirmed Nabaya’s criminal
judgment on direct appeal. United States v. Nabaya, 765 F. App’x 895 (4th Cir. 2019)
(No. 18-4134). In October 2021, we dismissed Nabaya’s appeal from the district court’s
July 15, 2021, order denying various motions in his ongoing 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding.
United States v. Nabaya, No. 21-7158, 2021 WL 5492978 (4th Cir. Nov. 23, 2021)
(unpublished). Nabaya has now filed another notice of appeal, which has been construed
as an appeal from either the criminal judgment or the July 2021 order. Because we
previously affirmed the criminal judgment and dismissed the appeal from the July 15, 2021,
order, we dismiss this appeal as duplicative. 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.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.