Filed: Dec. 20, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Rehearing granted and appeal dismissed, February 2, 2005 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-4418 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Party in Interest - Appellee, versus RANDY LEE HAMMITT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-14; BK-02-32597; CR-04-142) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 20, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and
Summary: Rehearing granted and appeal dismissed, February 2, 2005 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-4418 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Party in Interest - Appellee, versus RANDY LEE HAMMITT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-14; BK-02-32597; CR-04-142) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 20, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and S..
More
Rehearing granted and appeal dismissed, February 2, 2005 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-4418 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Party in Interest - Appellee, versus RANDY LEE HAMMITT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-14; BK-02-32597; CR-04-142) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 20, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randy Lee Hammitt, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Stanley Glaser, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Randy Lee Hammitt appeals the district court’s order for criminal contempt for failure to comply with court issued subpoenas in an involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Hammitt, No. CA-03-14 (W.D.N.C. May 27, 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 -