Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Christopher White, 99-4412 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-4412 Visitors: 8
Filed: Nov. 03, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-4412 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER LAMONT WHITE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-332) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: November 3, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. M
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-4412 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER LAMONT WHITE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-332) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: November 3, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. McClellan, IVEY, MCCLELLAN, GATTON, & TALCOTT, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Christopher Lamont White appeals from his conditional guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. On appeal, he only alleges that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence found in his vehicle fol- lowing a traffic stop. We have reviewed the order denying the motion to suppress and the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Christopher, No. CR-98-332 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 14, 1999). 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. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer