Filed: Oct. 19, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6552 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICE BEHANZIN WILSON, a/k/a K-Mel, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-34) Submitted: October 1, 2004 Decided: October 19, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrice
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6552 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICE BEHANZIN WILSON, a/k/a K-Mel, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-34) Submitted: October 1, 2004 Decided: October 19, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrice B..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6552 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICE BEHANZIN WILSON, a/k/a K-Mel, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-34) Submitted: October 1, 2004 Decided: October 19, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrice Behanzin Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Patrice Behanzin Wilson appeals the district court’s margin order denying his motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying his motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the court. See United States v. Wilson, No. CR-96-34 (E.D.N.C. Jan 23, 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 -
