Filed: Jun. 20, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6639 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES EDWARD THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-97-299-3) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 20, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Thomas, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6639 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES EDWARD THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-97-299-3) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 20, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Thomas, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6639 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES EDWARD THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-97-299-3) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 20, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Thomas Church, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Edward Thomas appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel the Government to show cause as to why it failed to file a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Thomas, No. CR-97-299-3 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 8, 2003). 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
