Filed: Jul. 02, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6686 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRANCE SMITH, a/k/a Ty, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-02-217) Submitted: June 24, 2004 Decided: July 2, 2004 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrance Smith, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6686 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRANCE SMITH, a/k/a Ty, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-02-217) Submitted: June 24, 2004 Decided: July 2, 2004 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrance Smith, Appellant Pro ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6686 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRANCE SMITH, a/k/a Ty, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-02-217) Submitted: June 24, 2004 Decided: July 2, 2004 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrance Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Terrance Smith appeals the district court’s order dismissing Smith’s motion to dismiss his indictment. 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. Smith, No. CR-02-217 (E.D. Va. Apr. 5, 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 -
