Filed: Mar. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6055 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN ANTHONY PETERSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (4:07-cr-00045-BR-1) Submitted: March 12, 2015 Decided: March 17, 2015 Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Anthony Peter
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6055 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN ANTHONY PETERSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (4:07-cr-00045-BR-1) Submitted: March 12, 2015 Decided: March 17, 2015 Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Anthony Peters..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6055 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN ANTHONY PETERSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (4:07-cr-00045-BR-1) Submitted: March 12, 2015 Decided: March 17, 2015 Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Anthony Peterson, Appellant Pro Se. Kristine L. Fritz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Anthony Peterson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a new trial and related motions. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. United States v. Peterson, No. 4:07-cr-00045-BR-1 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 19, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
