Filed: Apr. 11, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1684 In Re: MICHAEL JACKSON BEATTIE, Petitioner - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge, James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge, and Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (3:06-mc-00002-JRS) Submitted: March 9, 2007 Decided: April 11, 2007 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1684 In Re: MICHAEL JACKSON BEATTIE, Petitioner - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge, James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge, and Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (3:06-mc-00002-JRS) Submitted: March 9, 2007 Decided: April 11, 2007 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affir..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1684 In Re: MICHAEL JACKSON BEATTIE, Petitioner - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge, James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge, and Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (3:06-mc-00002-JRS) Submitted: March 9, 2007 Decided: April 11, 2007 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Jackson Beattie, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Jackson Beattie appeals from an order of a three- judge panel denying his petition for reinstatement to the practice of law before the Eastern District of Virginia. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the panel. See In re: Michael Jackson Beattie, No. 3:06-mc-00002-JRS (E.D. Va. May 22, 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 -
