Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. John Daren Hughes, A/K/A Ellis Rasheed Williams, A/K/A L, 96-6098 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6098 Visitors: 6
Filed: May 03, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 83 F.3d 416 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Daren HUGHES, a/k/a Ellis Rasheed Williams, a/k/a L, Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-6098. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted April 15, 1996. Decided May
More

83 F.3d 416

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
John Daren HUGHES, a/k/a Ellis Rasheed Williams, a/k/a L,
Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-6098.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 15, 1996.
Decided May 3, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-91-209-G)

John Daren Hughes, Appellant Pro Se. David Bernard Smith, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

M.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence filed under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Hughes, No. CR-91-209-G (M.D.N.C. Dec. 12, 1995). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

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