Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Cabiness, 05-7462 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-7462 Visitors: 18
Filed: Mar. 28, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7462 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KIRKWOOD DONNELL CABINESS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 05-7493 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KIRKWOOD DONNELL CABINESS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 05-7508 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KIRKWOOD DONNELL CABINESS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7462 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KIRKWOOD DONNELL CABINESS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 05-7493 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KIRKWOOD DONNELL CABINESS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 05-7508 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KIRKWOOD DONNELL CABINESS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CR-02-70031) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 28, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Nos. 05-7462/7493, affirmed; No. 05-7508, dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kirkwood Donnell Cabiness, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Kirkwood Donnell Cabiness appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to compel, motion for reconsideration, motion for bond pending appeal, motion for an evidentiary hearing, and motion to disqualify the United States Attorney. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court as to all complaints except the district court order denying bail pending appeal. See United States v. Cabiness, 4:02- CR-70031 (W.D. Va. Sept. 8, 2005); United States v. Cabiness, 4:02- CR-70031 (W.D. Va. Sept. 2, 2005). Because the underlying appeals lack merit, the appeal from the denial of bail (No. 05-7508) is dismissed as moot. 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. Nos. 05-7462/7493 - AFFIRMED No. 05-7508 - DISMISSED - 3 -
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