Filed: Feb. 09, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8227 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. PAUL A. LEE, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:89-cr-00273-FPS-1) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: February 9, 2010 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8227 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. PAUL A. LEE, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:89-cr-00273-FPS-1) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: February 9, 2010 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curia..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8227 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. PAUL A. LEE, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:89-cr-00273-FPS-1) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: February 9, 2010 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul A. Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Paul A. Lee appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions to revisit and to refile. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Lee, No. 5:89-cr-00273-FPS-1 (N.D. W. Va. Dec. 9, 2009). Appellant’s “Motion for Abeyance and Motion to Dismiss” is denied. 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
