Filed: Sep. 14, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6716 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PAUL DOUGLAS BAKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00012) Submitted: September 11, 2007 Decided: September 14, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Dougla
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6716 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PAUL DOUGLAS BAKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00012) Submitted: September 11, 2007 Decided: September 14, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Douglas..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6716 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PAUL DOUGLAS BAKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00012) Submitted: September 11, 2007 Decided: September 14, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Douglas Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Paul Douglas Baker appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel specific performance. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Baker, No. 5:03-cr-00012 (W.D.N.C. May 2, 2007). 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 -
