Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Robin Slagle, 16-6319 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-6319 Visitors: 41
Filed: Aug. 10, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6319 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBIN A. SLAGLE, Petitioner – Appellant, TIMOTHY JAMES FISHER, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:14-cr-00058-GMG-RWT-1) Submitted: August 9, 2016 Decided: August 10, 2016 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6319 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBIN A. SLAGLE, Petitioner – Appellant, TIMOTHY JAMES FISHER, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:14-cr-00058-GMG-RWT-1) Submitted: August 9, 2016 Decided: August 10, 2016 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robin A. Slagle, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Anna Zartler Krasinski, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia; Lynette Danae DeMasi-Lemon, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robin A. Slagle appeals the district court’s order denying as untimely her third-party objection to forfeiture. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Fisher, No. 3:14-cr-00058-GMG-RWT-1 (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 19, 2016). 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer