Filed: Feb. 22, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7644 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES EDWARD ELLERBE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-100-BR) Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 22, 2006 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7644 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES EDWARD ELLERBE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-100-BR) Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 22, 2006 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7644 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES EDWARD ELLERBE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-100-BR) Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 22, 2006 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Ellerbe, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Edward Ellerbe appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel release of withheld discovery and his case file. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. See United States v. Ellerbe, No. CR-97-100-BR (E.D.N.C. filed Sept. 12, 2005 & entered Sept. 13, 2005). 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 -
