Filed: Aug. 06, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6453 LAWRENCE HOLUB, Petitioner – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (2:09-cv-00062-REM-DJJ) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 6, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6453 LAWRENCE HOLUB, Petitioner – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (2:09-cv-00062-REM-DJJ) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 6, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6453 LAWRENCE HOLUB, Petitioner – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (2:09-cv-00062-REM-DJJ) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 6, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Holub, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lawrence Holub appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing with prejudice Holub’s motion for relief from judgment, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Holub v. United States, No. 2:09-cv-00062- REM-DJJ (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 15, 2010). 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
