Filed: Sep. 05, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6515 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES LAFITY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-18) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 5, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6515 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES LAFITY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-18) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 5, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6515 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES LAFITY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-18) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 5, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Lafity, Appellant Pro Se. Michael D. Stein, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles Lafity appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for grand jury minutes. 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. Lafity, No. CR-93-18 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 25, 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