Filed: Jan. 18, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-4282 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VERNON EARL BARNES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-00- 541-L) Submitted: January 7, 2002 Decided: January 18, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, El
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-4282 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VERNON EARL BARNES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-00- 541-L) Submitted: January 7, 2002 Decided: January 18, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Eli..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-4282 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VERNON EARL BARNES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-00- 541-L) Submitted: January 7, 2002 Decided: January 18, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Elizabeth L. Pearl, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Joseph L. Evans, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Vernon Earl Barnes appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, he challenges the denial of his motion to suppress. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s oral findings and written opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. (J.A. 137-58, 169-74). We dispense with oral argument be- cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2