Filed: Jun. 18, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6517 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ORTEZ ANTOINNE PROPST, Defendant -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-91-119, CA-01-60-3-2-MU) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 18, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ortez
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6517 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ORTEZ ANTOINNE PROPST, Defendant -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-91-119, CA-01-60-3-2-MU) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 18, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ortez A..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6517 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ORTEZ ANTOINNE PROPST, Defendant -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-91-119, CA-01-60-3-2-MU) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 18, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ortez Antoinne Propst, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ortez Antoinne Propst seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Propst, Nos. CR-91-119; CA- 01-60-3-2-MU (W.D.N.C. Mar. 18, 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
