Filed: Jun. 03, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6465 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STUART C. COLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-99-424-3-V, CR-97-87) Submitted: April 17, 2002 Decided: June 3, 2002 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stuart C. Cole, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6465 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STUART C. COLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-99-424-3-V, CR-97-87) Submitted: April 17, 2002 Decided: June 3, 2002 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stuart C. Cole, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6465 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STUART C. COLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-99-424-3-V, CR-97-87) Submitted: April 17, 2002 Decided: June 3, 2002 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stuart C. Cole, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lane Whisler, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Stuart C. Cole appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for bond pending a decision on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion. 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. See United States v. Cole, Nos. CR-97-87; CA-99-424-3-V (W.D.N.C. Mar. 1, 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 2
