Filed: Feb. 17, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2320 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NELLIE H. ROBERSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-03-3117-5) Submitted: January 28, 2005 Decided: February 17, 2005 Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nellie H. Roberson, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2320 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NELLIE H. ROBERSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-03-3117-5) Submitted: January 28, 2005 Decided: February 17, 2005 Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nellie H. Roberson, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2320 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NELLIE H. ROBERSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-03-3117-5) Submitted: January 28, 2005 Decided: February 17, 2005 Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nellie H. Roberson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert F. Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Nellie H. Roberson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment and ordering the foreclosure and sale of her property. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Roberson, No. CA-03-3117-5 (D.S.C. Sept. 28, 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 -
