Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Cook, 96-4514 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-4514 Visitors: 10
Filed: Dec. 19, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-4514 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES A. COOK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CR-96-231) Submitted: September 30, 1996 Decided: December 19, 1996 Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles A. Cook, Appellant P
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-4514 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES A. COOK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CR-96-231) Submitted: September 30, 1996 Decided: December 19, 1996 Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles A. Cook, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Craig Bradley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles A. Cook appeals the district court's order affirming his conviction by a magistrate judge of speeding on the George Washington Memorial Parkway, a federal highway under the jurisdic- tion of the United States and under the direction of the National Park Service. We have reviewed the record and the district court's order, and we perceive no ground for reversal. Assuming, arguendo, that the radar evidence proffered by the government should not have been admitted, the magistrate judge's error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; the remaining evidence amply supported the conviction. We have considered Cook's other assignments of error, and we deem them to be without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. United States v. Cook, No. CR-96-231 (E.D. Va. June 21, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material be- fore the court, and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer