Filed: Oct. 15, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7286 ROGER BYRD; HERMAN JUNIOR BYRD, Petitioners - Appellants, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-04-77) Submitted: October 7, 2004 Decided: October 15, 2004 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7286 ROGER BYRD; HERMAN JUNIOR BYRD, Petitioners - Appellants, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-04-77) Submitted: October 7, 2004 Decided: October 15, 2004 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rog..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7286 ROGER BYRD; HERMAN JUNIOR BYRD, Petitioners - Appellants, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-04-77) Submitted: October 7, 2004 Decided: October 15, 2004 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger Byrd, Herman Junior Byrd, Appellants Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Roger Byrd and Herman Junior Byrd appeal the district court’s order denying their motions for judicial notice and to join the defendants. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Byrd v. United States, No. CA-04-77 (W.D.N.C. July 7, 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 -
