Filed: May 03, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6098 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN DAREN HUGHES, a/k/a Ellis Rasheed Williams, a/k/a L, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-91-209-G) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 3, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirm
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6098 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN DAREN HUGHES, a/k/a Ellis Rasheed Williams, a/k/a L, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-91-209-G) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 3, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirme..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6098 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN DAREN HUGHES, a/k/a Ellis Rasheed Williams, a/k/a L, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-91-209-G) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 3, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Daren Hughes, Appellant Pro Se. David Bernard Smith, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence filed under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. 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. United States v. Hughes, No. CR-91-209-G (M.D.N.C. Dec. 12, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2