Filed: Aug. 29, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6487 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH JOHNSON, JR., a/k/a Joseph R. Johnson, a/k/a Joe Johnson, Jr., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-96-180-A) Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 29, 2001 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6487 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH JOHNSON, JR., a/k/a Joseph R. Johnson, a/k/a Joe Johnson, Jr., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-96-180-A) Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 29, 2001 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6487 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH JOHNSON, JR., a/k/a Joseph R. Johnson, a/k/a Joe Johnson, Jr., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-96-180-A) 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joseph Johnson, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. 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. Johnson, No. CR-96-180-A (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 15, 2001; entered Mar. 20, 2001). 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