Filed: Aug. 21, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6709 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONALDO TYNELL LIGHTFOOT, a/k/a Tynell, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-98-150) Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 21, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronaldo Tynell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6709 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONALDO TYNELL LIGHTFOOT, a/k/a Tynell, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-98-150) Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 21, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronaldo Tynell ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6709 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONALDO TYNELL LIGHTFOOT, a/k/a Tynell, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-98-150) Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 21, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronaldo Tynell Lightfoot, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ronaldo Tynell Lightfoot 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. Lightfoot, No. CR-98-150 (E.D. Va. Apr. 11, 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
