Filed: Jul. 29, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1579 SHEKHEM BEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUWANNA MANN PRODUCTION CORPORATION; MOGAN CREEK PRODUCTION INCORPORATED; IN DRAG PRODUCTION CORPORATION; WARNER BROTHERS PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; WARNER BROTHERS PICTURES, INCORPORATED; TIME WARNER PRODUCTION CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, Distric
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1579 SHEKHEM BEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUWANNA MANN PRODUCTION CORPORATION; MOGAN CREEK PRODUCTION INCORPORATED; IN DRAG PRODUCTION CORPORATION; WARNER BROTHERS PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; WARNER BROTHERS PICTURES, INCORPORATED; TIME WARNER PRODUCTION CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1579 SHEKHEM BEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUWANNA MANN PRODUCTION CORPORATION; MOGAN CREEK PRODUCTION INCORPORATED; IN DRAG PRODUCTION CORPORATION; WARNER BROTHERS PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; WARNER BROTHERS PICTURES, INCORPORATED; TIME WARNER PRODUCTION CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-02-20-3-V) Submitted: July 19, 2002 Decided: July 29, 2002 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shekhem Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Shekhem Bey appeals the district court’s order denying the request to certify registration of an apparently fraudulent judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1963 (West Supp. 2002). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bey v. Juwanna Mann Prod., No. CA-02-20-3-V (W.D.N.C. May 3, 2002). 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