Filed: Aug. 12, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6634 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROGER LEE HARRELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-01-112) Submitted: July 31, 2003 Decided: August 12, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger Lee Ha
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6634 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROGER LEE HARRELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-01-112) Submitted: July 31, 2003 Decided: August 12, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger Lee Har..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6634 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROGER LEE HARRELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-01-112) Submitted: July 31, 2003 Decided: August 12, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger Lee Harrell, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Stephan Altimari, James Brien Comey, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Roger Lee Harrell appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of a previous order denying his motion to stay a state court proceeding. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Harrell, No. CR-01-112 (E.D. Va. Apr. 8, 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
