Filed: Jun. 20, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6753 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HERBERT SMART, a/k/a Panama, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-25) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 20, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herbert Smart, Appellant P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6753 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HERBERT SMART, a/k/a Panama, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-25) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 20, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herbert Smart, Appellant Pr..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6753 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HERBERT SMART, a/k/a Panama, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-25) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 20, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herbert Smart, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Herbert Smart appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to unseal three psychiatric reports. 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. Smart, No. CR-97-25 (E.D. Va. Apr. 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
