Filed: Nov. 06, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7142 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NATHANIEL BURRESS, Defendant - Appellant.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. (5:04-cr-00031-FPS-JES-1) Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 6, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7142 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NATHANIEL BURRESS, Defendant - Appellant.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. (5:04-cr-00031-FPS-JES-1) Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 6, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. N..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7142 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NATHANIEL BURRESS, Defendant - Appellant.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. (5:04-cr-00031-FPS-JES-1) Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 6, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Burress, Appellant Pro Se. Randolph John Bernard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, John Castle Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Burress appeals the district court’s order denying his self-styled “Petition for Redress of Grievance in Admiralty.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Burress, No. 5:04-cr-00031-FPS-JES-1 (N.D. W. Va. June 21, 2012). 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 in the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
