Filed: Jun. 17, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6287 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN WESLEY FAIRCLOTH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-95-72-H) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 17, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Wesley Faircloth, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6287 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN WESLEY FAIRCLOTH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-95-72-H) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 17, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Wesley Faircloth, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6287 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN WESLEY FAIRCLOTH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-95-72-H) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 17, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Wesley Faircloth, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: John Wesley Faircloth appeals the district court’s order authorizing the sale of real property pursuant to a fine in a criminal judgment imposed in 1996. 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. Faircloth, No. CR-95-72-H (E.D.N.C. Jan. 22, 2003). 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
