Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Lora, 02-6178 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6178 Visitors: 19
Filed: Apr. 12, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6178 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILFREDO GONZALEZ LORA, Defendant - Appellant. No. 02-6191 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILFREDO GONZALEZ LORA, Defendant - Appellant. No. 02-6366 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILFREDO GONZALEZ LORA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Ale
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6178 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILFREDO GONZALEZ LORA, Defendant - Appellant. No. 02-6191 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILFREDO GONZALEZ LORA, Defendant - Appellant. No. 02-6366 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILFREDO GONZALEZ LORA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-98-358-A) Submitted: March 15, 2002 Decided: April 12, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora appeals the district court’s orders (1) denying his motion for new trial filed under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33; (2) denying his motion to dismiss the indictment under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2); (3) denying his motions to reconsider the denial of his Rule 12(b)(2) and Rule 33 motions; and (4) denying his emergency motion for grand jury documents and motion for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Lora, No. CR-98-358-A (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 14 & entered Dec. 17, 2001; Jan. 4, 2002; Jan. 9, 2002; Jan. 17, 2002; filed Feb. 7 & entered Feb. 8, 2002). 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 3
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer