Filed: Jul. 28, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6642 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GREGORY LOUIS CHARLES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Salisbury. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-90-143-S) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 28, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Louis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6642 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GREGORY LOUIS CHARLES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Salisbury. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-90-143-S) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 28, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Louis ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6642 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GREGORY LOUIS CHARLES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Salisbury. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-90-143-S) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 28, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Louis Charles, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gregory Louis Charles appeals the district court’s order deny- ing his motion to dismiss his indictment. 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. See United States v. Charles, No. CR-90-143-S (M.D.N.C. Apr. 21, 1999). 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
