Filed: May 28, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6456 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee, versus KAREEM TOMBLIN, Petitioner - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-238-3-V) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 28, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kareem Tomblin, Appellan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6456 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee, versus KAREEM TOMBLIN, Petitioner - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-238-3-V) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 28, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kareem Tomblin, Appellant..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6456 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee, versus KAREEM TOMBLIN, Petitioner - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-238-3-V) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 28, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kareem Tomblin, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kareem Tomblin appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 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 United States v. Tomblin, No. CR-92-238-3-V (W.D.N.C. Dec. 4, 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
