Filed: Jun. 06, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6175 JOSHUA BERNARD JOHNS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-02-1687-A) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 6, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joshua Bernard Johns, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6175 JOSHUA BERNARD JOHNS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-02-1687-A) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 6, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joshua Bernard Johns, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6175 JOSHUA BERNARD JOHNS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-02-1687-A) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 6, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joshua Bernard Johns, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joshua Bernard Johns appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Johns v. Virginia, No. CA-02-1687-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 13, 2002). We deny Johns’ motion for general relief. 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
