Filed: Oct. 04, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6506 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM TERRENCE CROSS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00010-RBS-1) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 4, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Terrence Cr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6506 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM TERRENCE CROSS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00010-RBS-1) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 4, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Terrence Cro..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6506 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM TERRENCE CROSS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00010-RBS-1) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 4, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Terrence Cross, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Terrence Cross appeals the district court’s margin order denying his motion for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Cross, No. 2:03-cr- 00010-RBS-1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 11, 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
