Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Keith Bernard Johnson, A/K/A Bonji Denard Crane, A/K/A Bonji Denard Crane, 96-6980 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6980 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 03, 1997
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 105 F.3d 649 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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. Keith Bernard JOHNSON, a/k/a Bonji Denard Crane, a/k/a Bonji Denard Crane, Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-6980. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 19,
More

105 F.3d 649

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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.
Keith Bernard JOHNSON, a/k/a Bonji Denard Crane, a/k/a Bonji
Denard Crane, Defendant--Appellant.

No. 96-6980.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 1996.
Decided Jan. 3, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-29-P, CR-93-268-P)

Keith Bernard Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, NC, for Appellee.

W.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion for appointment of a new supervising probation officer. 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. Johnson, Nos. CR-93-29-P; CR-93-268-P (W.D.N.C. May 31, 1996). 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.

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