Filed: Nov. 22, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-4420 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WIDNEY TREVOR DINNALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR- 98-946-DSW) Submitted: October 23, 2002 Decided: November 22, 2002 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-4420 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WIDNEY TREVOR DINNALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR- 98-946-DSW) Submitted: October 23, 2002 Decided: November 22, 2002 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. W..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-4420 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WIDNEY TREVOR DINNALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR- 98-946-DSW) Submitted: October 23, 2002 Decided: November 22, 2002 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Widney Trevor Dinnall, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Widney Trevor Dinnall appeals the district court’s fourth order forfeiting substitute assets. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Dinnall, No. CR-98-946- DWS (D.S.C. filed May 1, 2002; entered May 2, 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
