Filed: Mar. 22, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6045 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLETTE DUFRAY JOHNSON, a/k/a Charlotte Johnson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (7:10-cr-00093-BR-1) Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6045 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLETTE DUFRAY JOHNSON, a/k/a Charlotte Johnson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (7:10-cr-00093-BR-1) Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cur..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6045 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLETTE DUFRAY JOHNSON, a/k/a Charlotte Johnson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (7:10-cr-00093-BR-1) Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charlette Dufray Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Harris Cowley, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charlette Dufray Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for release of grand jury transcripts or for dismissal of her convictions and sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Johnson, No. 7:10-cr-00093-BR-1 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 6, 2015). 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
