Filed: May 24, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6441 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DUANE MONTRIK BURTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:00-CR-105-1-F) Submitted: May 16, 2006 Decided: May 24, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Duane Montrik Burton, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6441 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DUANE MONTRIK BURTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:00-CR-105-1-F) Submitted: May 16, 2006 Decided: May 24, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Duane Montrik Burton, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6441 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DUANE MONTRIK BURTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:00-CR-105-1-F) Submitted: May 16, 2006 Decided: May 24, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Duane Montrik Burton, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Duane Montrik Burton appeals the district court’s sealed January 31, 2006, order denying his sealed motion dated December 21, 2005. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. United States v. Burton, No. 7:00- CR-105-1-F (E.D.N.C., Jan. 31, 2006). 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 -
