Filed: Oct. 10, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-4074 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARK PAUL SARNO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-99-58, CR-99-134, CR-99-135) Submitted: August 28, 2001 Decided: October 10, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Paul
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-4074 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARK PAUL SARNO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-99-58, CR-99-134, CR-99-135) Submitted: August 28, 2001 Decided: October 10, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Paul ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-4074 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARK PAUL SARNO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-99-58, CR-99-134, CR-99-135) Submitted: August 28, 2001 Decided: October 10, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Paul Sarno, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Patrick Auld, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mark Paul Sarno appeals from the district court’s order af- firming the magistrate judge’s order denying Sarno’s motion for the magistrate judge to recuse himself from all further proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Sarno, Nos. CR-99-58; CR- 99-134; CR-99-135 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 18, 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