Filed: May 03, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8259 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAYMOND JEROME FRANCIS, a/k/a Raymond Rudone Ramsey, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:96-cr-00021-LHT-1) Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 3, 2010 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed b
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8259 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAYMOND JEROME FRANCIS, a/k/a Raymond Rudone Ramsey, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:96-cr-00021-LHT-1) Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 3, 2010 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8259 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAYMOND JEROME FRANCIS, a/k/a Raymond Rudone Ramsey, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:96-cr-00021-LHT-1) Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 3, 2010 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Jerome Francis, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Raymond Jerome Francis appeals the district court’s order denying his “Motion of Complaint . . . And Request For Appropriate Relief.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Francis, No. 1:96-cr- 00021-LHT-1 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 11, 2009). 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
