Filed: Mar. 10, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-4465 In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena _ UNDER SEAL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNDER SEAL; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge; Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-939-B) Submitted: February 27, 1997 Decided: March 10, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Ju
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-4465 In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena _ UNDER SEAL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNDER SEAL; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge; Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-939-B) Submitted: February 27, 1997 Decided: March 10, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Jud..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-4465 In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena _________________________ UNDER SEAL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNDER SEAL; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge; Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-939-B) Submitted: February 27, 1997 Decided: March 10, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Under Seal, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Corbin Byrd Woods, Sparks, Maryland; Ira Lee Oring, Assistant United States Attorney, Balti- more, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying his motions to quash a grand jury subpoena to his former attorney, for reconsideration of the denial, for a stay pending reconsideration, and for a hearing. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. In re: Grand Jury Subpoena, No. CA-96-939-B (D. Md. May 9, 1996; June 4, 1996). 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