Filed: Nov. 30, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7276 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHNNY JERMANE SMARR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-95-28) Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decided: November 30, 2004 Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7276 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHNNY JERMANE SMARR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-95-28) Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decided: November 30, 2004 Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7276 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHNNY JERMANE SMARR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-95-28) Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decided: November 30, 2004 Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny Jermane Smarr, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Johnny Jermane Smarr appeals from the district court’s order denying his “Motion to Compel Government for Specific Performance.” 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. Smarr, No. CR-95-28 (W.D.N.C. July 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 -
