Filed: Oct. 11, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1757 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICHARD L. BRADLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-00-12-3) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard L. Bradley, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1757 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICHARD L. BRADLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-00-12-3) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard L. Bradley, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1757 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICHARD L. BRADLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-00-12-3) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard L. Bradley, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Richard L. Bradley appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration challenging service of process. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Bradley, No. CA- 00-12-3 (W.D. Va. May 1, 2001). 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
