Filed: Apr. 01, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6258 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN LEE BOYD, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-123-5-F, CA-00-220-7-F) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: April 1, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6258 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN LEE BOYD, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-123-5-F, CA-00-220-7-F) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: April 1, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6258 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN LEE BOYD, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-123-5-F, CA-00-220-7-F) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: April 1, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Lee Boyd, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Lee Boyd, Jr., appeals from the district court’s orders denying his “Notice of Motion to Dismiss Indictment Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. Rule 12(b)(2)” and denying his motion for reconsideration. 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. Boyd, Nos. CR-93-123-F-5; CA- 00-220-7-F (E.D.N.C. filed Sept. 13, 2002 & entered Sept. 16, 2002; Oct. 4, 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
