Filed: Jul. 27, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6667 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH ZIADEH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00273-RLW) Submitted: June 16, 2006 Decided: July 27, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Ziadeh, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6667 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH ZIADEH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00273-RLW) Submitted: June 16, 2006 Decided: July 27, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Ziadeh, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6667 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH ZIADEH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00273-RLW) Submitted: June 16, 2006 Decided: July 27, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Ziadeh, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joseph Ziadeh appeals the district court’s order denying approval of his proposed “Promissory Note.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Ziadeh, No. 3:02-cr-00273-RLW (E.D. Va. Mar. 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 -
