Filed: May 04, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7906 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THOMAS DALE HANLIN, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CR-99- 583) Submitted: April 29,2004 Decided: May 4, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Dale Hanlin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7906 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THOMAS DALE HANLIN, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CR-99- 583) Submitted: April 29,2004 Decided: May 4, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Dale Hanlin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. J..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7906 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THOMAS DALE HANLIN, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CR-99- 583) Submitted: April 29,2004 Decided: May 4, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Dale Hanlin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Gerard Pyne, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thomas Dale Hanlin, Jr. appeals the district court’s order denying his motion “for Order Directing Attorney of Record to Surrender Defense File.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Hanlin, No. CR-99-583 (D. Md. Nov. 25, 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 -
