Filed: May 14, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7706 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PRINCE LINTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-22) Submitted: March 26, 2002 Decided: May 14, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Prince Linton, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7706 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PRINCE LINTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-22) Submitted: March 26, 2002 Decided: May 14, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Prince Linton, Appellant Pro Se. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7706 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PRINCE LINTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-22) Submitted: March 26, 2002 Decided: May 14, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Prince Linton, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Prince Linton appeals an order of the district court denying his motion for reconsideration of the court’s order of August 17, 2001, which denied his request for an inquiry into the procedure used to test drug evidence in his case and for independent retesting of the drug evidence. 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. Linton, No. CR-97-22 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 24, 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