Filed: Aug. 05, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6453 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSEPH J. CAMPBELL, a/k/a PI, a/k/a Pit, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:04-cr-01046-DCN-7) Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 5, 2009 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph J. Campbe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6453 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSEPH J. CAMPBELL, a/k/a PI, a/k/a Pit, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:04-cr-01046-DCN-7) Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 5, 2009 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph J. Campbel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6453 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSEPH J. CAMPBELL, a/k/a PI, a/k/a Pit, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:04-cr-01046-DCN-7) Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 5, 2009 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph J. Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joseph J. Campbell appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss indictment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Campbell, No. 2:04-cr-01046-DCN-7 (D.S.C. Feb. 25, 2009). 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
