Filed: Feb. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7455 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MATTHEW JAMES DURY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00016-MR-1) Submitted: February 19, 2019 Decided: February 28, 2019 Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7455 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MATTHEW JAMES DURY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00016-MR-1) Submitted: February 19, 2019 Decided: February 28, 2019 Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7455 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MATTHEW JAMES DURY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00016-MR-1) Submitted: February 19, 2019 Decided: February 28, 2019 Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew James Dury, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Matthew James Dury appeals the district court’s order denying his post-judgment motions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Dury, No. 1:08-cr-00016-MR-1 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 13, 2018). 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
