Filed: Sep. 24, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7284 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAOUL LAFOND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-96-212) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raoul Lafond, Appellant Pr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7284 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAOUL LAFOND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-96-212) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raoul Lafond, Appellant Pro..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7284 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAOUL LAFOND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-96-212) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raoul Lafond, Appellant Pro Se. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Raoul Lafond appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the court’s denial of his motion to disclose grand jury transcripts. 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. Lafond, No. CR-96-212 (M.D.N.C. July 12, 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 -
