Filed: Aug. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1268 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BHUPENDRA PATEL, Former Owner of Y & J Food Market, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-102-3-C) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1268 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BHUPENDRA PATEL, Former Owner of Y & J Food Market, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-102-3-C) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1268 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BHUPENDRA PATEL, Former Owner of Y & J Food Market, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-102-3-C) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bhupendra Patel, Appellant Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting a de- fault judgment against Appellant. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Patel, No. CA-96-102-3-C (W.D. Va. Feb. 6, 1997). We dis- pense 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
