Filed: Dec. 06, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7126 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FAYAZ ANJUM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR- 92-96-JFM) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 6, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fayaz Anjum, Appellant Pro Se. Steph
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7126 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FAYAZ ANJUM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR- 92-96-JFM) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 6, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fayaz Anjum, Appellant Pro Se. Stephe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7126 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FAYAZ ANJUM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR- 92-96-JFM) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 6, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fayaz Anjum, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Matthew Schenning, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Fayaz Anjum appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for jury selection records. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Anjum, No. CR-92-96-JFM (D. Md. filed June 19, 2001; entered June 20, 2001). 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
