Filed: Feb. 27, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7349 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HILTON THOMAS, a/k/a Dinkles, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-355-WMN) Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: February 27, 2004 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hilton Thomas
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7349 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HILTON THOMAS, a/k/a Dinkles, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-355-WMN) Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: February 27, 2004 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hilton Thomas,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7349 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HILTON THOMAS, a/k/a Dinkles, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-355-WMN) Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: February 27, 2004 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hilton Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Hilton Thomas appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 motion for a new trial. 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. Hilton, No. CR-97-355-WMN (D. Md. July 30, 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 -
