Filed: Aug. 29, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6062 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIMOTHY ADAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-94-302, CA-97-1225-1) Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 29, 2001 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6062 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIMOTHY ADAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-94-302, CA-97-1225-1) Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 29, 2001 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublish..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6062 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIMOTHY ADAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-94-302, CA-97-1225-1) Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 29, 2001 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr., OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Timothy Adams appeals from the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Adams, Nos. CR-94-302; CA-97-1225-1 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 19, 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
