Filed: Oct. 26, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7004 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALVIN B. TRUESDALE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-92-34-V) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 26, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7004 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALVIN B. TRUESDALE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-92-34-V) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 26, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7004 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALVIN B. TRUESDALE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-92-34-V) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 26, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alvin B. Truesdale, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Davis Bell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Alvin B. Truesdale appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to certify a federal question and to vacate the May 6, 1997, order of the district court. 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. Truesdale, No. CR-92-34-V (W.D.N.C. May 31, 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
