Filed: Oct. 08, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6580 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KENNETH EARL LOGAN, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CR-99-141; CA-02-197-2) Submitted: September 29, 2004 Decided: October 8, 2004 Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6580 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KENNETH EARL LOGAN, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CR-99-141; CA-02-197-2) Submitted: September 29, 2004 Decided: October 8, 2004 Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6580 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KENNETH EARL LOGAN, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CR-99-141; CA-02-197-2) Submitted: September 29, 2004 Decided: October 8, 2004 Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Earl Logan, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kenneth Earl Logan, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying Logan’s motion for production and disclosure of grand jury transcripts. 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. Logan, Nos. CR-99-141; CA-02-197-2 (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 25, 2004; entered Mar. 26, 2004). 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 -
