Filed: Jun. 18, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6157 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES A. BUTLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-44) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Butler, Appellant Pr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6157 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES A. BUTLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-44) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Butler, Appellant Pro..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6157 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES A. BUTLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-44) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James A. Butler appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for clarification. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Butler’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Butler, No. CR-91-44 (E.D. Va. Jan. 16, 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. DISMISSED 2
