Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Chan, 03-4056 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-4056 Visitors: 3
Filed: Oct. 24, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4056 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TOM CHAN, Defendant - Appellant. No. 03-4057 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM CHAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-01-290) Submitted: August 26, 2003 Decided: October 24, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4056 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TOM CHAN, Defendant - Appellant. No. 03-4057 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM CHAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-01-290) Submitted: August 26, 2003 Decided: October 24, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina; Michael W. Patrick, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellants. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, L. Patrick Auld, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tom Chan and William Chan appeal the district court’s orders affirming their convictions and sentences. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Chan, No. CR-01-290 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 27, 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