Filed: Mar. 16, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6003 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONNIE DEVONE JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-96-157-HO) Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 16, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie Devone Johnson, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6003 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONNIE DEVONE JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-96-157-HO) Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 16, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie Devone Johnson, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6003 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONNIE DEVONE JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-96-157-HO) Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 16, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie Devone Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ronnie Devone Johnson appeals the district court’s order deny- ing his “Motion to Reach Final Disposition on Magistrate Judge Order filed October 30, 2000.” We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. According- ly, we grant Johnson’s motion to adopt appendix and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Johnson, No. CR- 96-157-HO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 8, 2000). 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