Filed: Feb. 25, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6989 ERIC VONGRASTIC LOGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-98-14-F) Submitted: February 9, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6989 ERIC VONGRASTIC LOGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-98-14-F) Submitted: February 9, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6989 ERIC VONGRASTIC LOGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-98-14-F) Submitted: February 9, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Vongrastic Logan, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Eric Vongrastic Logan, a federal prisoner, appeals the dis- trict court’s order denying relief on his civil complaint, in which he sought credit for time served pretrial to be applied against his federal bank robbery sentence. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. According- ly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Logan v. United States, No. CA-98-14-F (E.D.N.C. May 26, 1998). 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
