Filed: Dec. 11, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7217 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICKY LEE VANCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Abingdon. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-22) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 11, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricky Lee Vance, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7217 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICKY LEE VANCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Abingdon. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-22) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 11, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricky Lee Vance, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7217 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICKY LEE VANCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Abingdon. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-22) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 11, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricky Lee Vance, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ricky Lee Vance appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for production of documents and his motion for the district judge to recuse himself. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Vance, No. CR-94-22 (W.D. Va. June 19, 2000). 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
