Filed: May 04, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6093 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HOWELL WAY WOLTZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00438-WEB) Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Howell Way Woltz, Appellant Pr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6093 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HOWELL WAY WOLTZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00438-WEB) Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Howell Way Woltz, Appellant Pro..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6093 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HOWELL WAY WOLTZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00438-WEB) Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Howell Way Woltz, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Howell Way Woltz appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for sanctions, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c), and for a different judge to conduct a hearing on his motion for sanctions. We have reviewed the record and we conclude there was no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Woltz, No. 3:08-cv-00438-WEB (W.D.N.C. Jan. 4, 2011). 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
