Filed: Oct. 08, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6761 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LARRY ARNOLD YOUNG, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:88-cr-00112-1) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 8, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Arnold Youn
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6761 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LARRY ARNOLD YOUNG, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:88-cr-00112-1) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 8, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Arnold Young..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6761 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LARRY ARNOLD YOUNG, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:88-cr-00112-1) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 8, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Arnold Young, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Arnold Young appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Young, No. 1:88-cr-00112-1 (S.D. W. Va. May 14, 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. DISMISSED 2
