Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Ellerbe, 02-7604 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7604 Visitors: 11
Filed: Feb. 12, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7604 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES EDWARD ELLERBE, Defendant - Appellant. No. 02-7889 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES EDWARD ELLERBE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-100) Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 12, 2003 Bef
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7604 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES EDWARD ELLERBE, Defendant - Appellant. No. 02-7889 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES EDWARD ELLERBE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-100) Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 12, 2003 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Ellerbe, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, Assistant United States Attorney, Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Edward Ellerbe appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for a court order, denying his supplemental motion for a court order, denying his second supplemental motion for a court order, and denying his motion for a downward departure. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the district court. See United States v. Ellerbe, No. CR-97-100 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 30, 2002; filed Nov. 5, 2002 & entered Nov. 6, 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer