Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Grant, 02-6760 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6760 Visitors: 60
Filed: Jun. 28, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 13, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6760 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CLIFTON ANTHONY GRANT, a/k/a Cliff, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-99-292-A) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 28, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per cu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6760 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CLIFTON ANTHONY GRANT, a/k/a Cliff, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-99-292-A) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 28, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clifton Anthony Grant, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Edward Rich, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Clifton Anthony Grant appeals the district court’s order denying his request for release pending appeal of the court’s orders denying his motion for review of his sentence and denying his motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Grant, No. 02-6505 (4th Cir. June 7, 2002) (unpublished). Because this Court’s decision in No. 02-6505 affirming the district court’s orders has issued, Grant’s present appeal of the denial of his motion for release pending appeal is moot. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED 2
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