Filed: Sep. 09, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6354 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLIE PATTERSON TAYLOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-99-99) Submitted: July 30, 2002 Decided: September 9, 2002 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charlie Patterson Taylor, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6354 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLIE PATTERSON TAYLOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-99-99) Submitted: July 30, 2002 Decided: September 9, 2002 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charlie Patterson Taylor, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6354
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLIE PATTERSON TAYLOR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CR-99-99)
Submitted: July 30, 2002 Decided: September 9, 2002
Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charlie Patterson Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller,
Richard Barton Campbell, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Charles P. Taylor appeals from the district court’s orders
denying his motion to dismiss the indictment and his motion for
reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.
Taylor, No. CR-99-99 (E.D. Va. Dec. 6, 2001; Jan. 22, 2002); see
United States v. Emmanuel,
288 F.3d 644, 649 (4th Cir. 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