Filed: Apr. 03, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7421 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JERRELL ANTONIO THOMAS, a/k/a Baby Huey, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-69) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 3, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerrell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7421 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JERRELL ANTONIO THOMAS, a/k/a Baby Huey, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-69) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 3, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerrell A..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7421 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JERRELL ANTONIO THOMAS, a/k/a Baby Huey, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-69) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 3, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerrell Antonio Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying Appel- lant's Petition for Disclosure of Signed Grand Jury Concurrence Form. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reason- ing of the district court. United States v. Thomas, No. CR-94-69 (E.D. Va. July 18, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
