Filed: Jan. 12, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6814 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DANIEL WATLINGTON, a/k/a Gator Slim, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:05-cr-00004-F-1) Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 12, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6814 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DANIEL WATLINGTON, a/k/a Gator Slim, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:05-cr-00004-F-1) Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 12, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6814 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DANIEL WATLINGTON, a/k/a Gator Slim, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:05-cr-00004-F-1) Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 12, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Watlington, Appellant Pro Se. S. Katherine Burnette, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel Watlington appeals the district court’s order denying several of his motions related to the Government’s attempts to satisfy his restitution obligation. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Watlington, No. 5:05-cr-00004-F-1 (E.D.N.C. June 1, 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
