Filed: Feb. 26, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8298 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GRADY LASSITER, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:01-cr-00154-HCM-1) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 26, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Grady Lassi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8298 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GRADY LASSITER, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:01-cr-00154-HCM-1) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 26, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Grady Lassit..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8298 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GRADY LASSITER, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:01-cr-00154-HCM-1) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 26, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Grady Lassiter, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Raymond Edward Patricco, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Grady Lassiter, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of audita querela. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Lassiter, No. 2:01-cr-00154-HCM-1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2008). 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
