Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Nagy, 04-7698 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-7698 Visitors: 21
Filed: Mar. 31, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7698 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PAUL NAGY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-951-5-BR) Submitted: March 11, 2005 Decided: March 31, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Georg
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7698 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PAUL NAGY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-951-5-BR) Submitted: March 11, 2005 Decided: March 31, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Alan DuBois, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Paul Nagy appeals the district court’s order denying Nagy’s motions for recusal of the district judge, disqualification of the Federal Public Defender’s Office, and expedited consideration. 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. Nagy, No. CA-98-951-5-BR (E.D.N.C. filed Sept. 1, 2004; entered Sept. 2, 2004). We deny as moot Nagy’s motion to expedite consideration of this appeal, and 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. The motion to strike Appellee’s informal brief is denied. AFFIRMED - 2 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer