Filed: Jan. 24, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7617 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CURTIS LEE WATSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-88-201-A) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 24, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Lee Watson, Appellan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7617 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CURTIS LEE WATSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-88-201-A) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 24, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Lee Watson, Appellant..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7617 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CURTIS LEE WATSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-88-201-A) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 24, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Lee Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Lea Ann Carlisle, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Curtis Lee Watson appeals the district court’s order denying his “Motion for Lifting of the Current Federal Detainer.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Watson, No. CR-88-201-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 9, 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
