Filed: Feb. 25, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7416 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BOBBY JACK DELAUDER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Charles H. Haden II, District Judge. (CR-93-22) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 25, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Jack DeLaud
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7416 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BOBBY JACK DELAUDER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Charles H. Haden II, District Judge. (CR-93-22) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 25, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Jack DeLaude..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7416 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BOBBY JACK DELAUDER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Charles H. Haden II, District Judge. (CR-93-22) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 25, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Jack DeLauder, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Mullen Frazier, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Bobby Jack DeLauder seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying DeLauder’s motion to require the government to allow him to “demonstrate ordinance.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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 -
