Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Hinson, 00-7082 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7082 Visitors: 22
Filed: Feb. 28, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7082 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM LEWIS HINSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-258-P) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 28, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished p
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7082 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM LEWIS HINSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-258-P) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 28, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Lewis Hinson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Lewis Hinson appeals the district court’s order deny- ing his “Motion to Quash Indictment and Dismiss Action for Lack of Jurisdiction.” We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Hin- son’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Hinson, No. CR-93-258-P (W.D.N.C. Jul. 21, 2000). 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
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