Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Thompson, 01-4255 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-4255 Visitors: 28
Filed: Oct. 23, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-4255 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES THOMPSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CR-00- 173-AMD) Submitted: September 18, 2001 Decided: October 23, 2001 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, B
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-4255 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES THOMPSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CR-00- 173-AMD) Submitted: September 18, 2001 Decided: October 23, 2001 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Beth M. Farber, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Sarah S. Gannett, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Stephen M. Schenning, United States Attorney, A. David Copperthite, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Thompson pled guilty to possession of an unregistered firearm and was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment. He appeals the denial of his motion to suppress. We have carefully examined the parties’ arguments, as well as the transcript of the hearing on Thompson’s motion to suppress, and we have found no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court which was explained from the bench. (J.A. at 113- 29). 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