Filed: Mar. 15, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7562 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES REGINALD SMITH, a/k/a Scank, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-89-75, CA-96-732-3) Submitted: March 9, 2000 Decided: March 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7562 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES REGINALD SMITH, a/k/a Scank, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-89-75, CA-96-732-3) Submitted: March 9, 2000 Decided: March 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7562 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES REGINALD SMITH, a/k/a Scank, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-89-75, CA-96-732-3) Submitted: March 9, 2000 Decided: March 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Reginald Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Reginald Smith appeals the district court’s order deny- ing his motion for leave to appeal out of time pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Smith, Nos. CR-89-75; CA-96-732-3 (E.D. Va. Oct. 7, 1999). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2