Filed: Apr. 27, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8237 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CURTIS LEE WATSON, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8237 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CURTIS LEE WATSON, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8237 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CURTIS LEE WATSON, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 motion for injunctive and declaratory relief. 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. filed Nov. 30, 2009; entered Dec. 1, 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
