Filed: Nov. 20, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7467 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FLOYD JUNIOR “DICK” POWELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-99-12) Submitted: November 6, 2003 Decided: November 20, 2003 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Floyd Juni
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7467 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FLOYD JUNIOR “DICK” POWELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-99-12) Submitted: November 6, 2003 Decided: November 20, 2003 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Floyd Junio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7467 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FLOYD JUNIOR “DICK” POWELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-99-12) Submitted: November 6, 2003 Decided: November 20, 2003 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Floyd Junior “Dick” Powell, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Floyd Junior “Dick” Powell appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to stay the sale of forfeited real property. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Powell, No. CR-99-12 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 29, 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
