Filed: May 30, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6484 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KENNETH EUGENE MCDANIEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-111, CA-00-90-3) Submitted: May 20, 2003 Decided: May 30, 2003 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Eug
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6484 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KENNETH EUGENE MCDANIEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-111, CA-00-90-3) Submitted: May 20, 2003 Decided: May 30, 2003 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Euge..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6484 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KENNETH EUGENE MCDANIEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-111, CA-00-90-3) Submitted: May 20, 2003 Decided: May 30, 2003 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Eugene McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Robert James Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer Marie Hoefling, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kenneth Eugene McDaniel appeals from the district court’s order denying his “Motion for an Order to Compel/Specific Performance of a Plea Agreement.” 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. McDaniel, Nos. CR-9-111; CA-00-90-3 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 7, 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