Filed: Nov. 24, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6683 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GERALD ANTHONY HALL, Defendant -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-94-195-MU) Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decided: November 24, 2004 Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6683 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GERALD ANTHONY HALL, Defendant -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-94-195-MU) Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decided: November 24, 2004 Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cur..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6683 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GERALD ANTHONY HALL, Defendant -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-94-195-MU) Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decided: November 24, 2004 Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Anthony Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Marie Hoefling, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gerald Anthony Hall appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for dismissal of indictment, Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2). 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. Hall, No. CR-94-195-MU (W.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 2004). 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 -
