Filed: May 19, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6103 LEARIE A. DALY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LOUIS CROCETTI, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Services, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-02- 4173-AMD) Submitted: April 28, 2003 Decided: May 19, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6103 LEARIE A. DALY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LOUIS CROCETTI, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Services, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-02- 4173-AMD) Submitted: April 28, 2003 Decided: May 19, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6103 LEARIE A. DALY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LOUIS CROCETTI, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Services, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-02- 4173-AMD) Submitted: April 28, 2003 Decided: May 19, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Learie A. Daly, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Learie Daly appeals the district court’s order dismissing the request for de novo review of the denial of his application for citizenship. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Daly v. Crocetti, No. CA-02-4173-AMD (D. Md. Dec. 30, 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
