Filed: Apr. 27, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8123 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CURTIS LEE WATSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:88-cr-00201-LMB-1) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Lee Wats
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8123 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CURTIS LEE WATSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:88-cr-00201-LMB-1) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Lee Watso..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8123 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CURTIS LEE WATSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:88-cr-00201-LMB-1) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Lee Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Curtis Lee Watson appeals the district court’s order denying Watson’s petition to appear before the court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Watson, No. 1:88-cr-00201-LMB-1 (E.D. Va. Nov. 6, 2009). 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 2
