Filed: Aug. 03, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6672 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAFAEL JAIMES-JAIMES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:01-cr-00245-1) Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 3, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rafael Jaimes-Ja
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6672 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAFAEL JAIMES-JAIMES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:01-cr-00245-1) Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 3, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rafael Jaimes-Jai..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6672 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAFAEL JAIMES-JAIMES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:01-cr-00245-1) Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 3, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rafael Jaimes-Jaimes, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rafael Jaimes-Jaimes appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for an Extraordinary Writ. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Jaimes-Jaimes, No. 1:01-cr-00245-1 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 26, 2010). 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
