Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Arora, 01-7856 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7856 Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 09, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7856 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VASU D. ARORA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-98-72-1, CA-01-305-7) Submitted: June 25, 2002 Decided: August 9, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vasu D. Arora, Appell
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7856 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VASU D. ARORA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-98-72-1, CA-01-305-7) Submitted: June 25, 2002 Decided: August 9, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vasu D. Arora, Appellant Pro Se. Rick A. Mountcastle, Steven Randall Ramseyer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Vasu D. Arora appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for the district court judge to recuse himself and authorizing the Government to dispose of Arora’s files. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Arora’s motion to file a corrected brief, deny his motion for summary judgment, and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Arora, Nos. CR-98-72-1; CA-01-305-7 (W.D. Va. Oct. 11, 2001). We deny Arora’s motion for reimbursement of the filing fee. Arora also filed two motions for relief, alleging violations of his Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We deny these motions without prejudice to his right to file for such relief in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2001) action pending in the district court. We also deny Arora’s motion for 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