Filed: Mar. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-8062 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER RAY PARRISH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00099-FL-1; 5:11-cv-00166-FL) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ch
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-8062 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER RAY PARRISH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00099-FL-1; 5:11-cv-00166-FL) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chr..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-8062 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER RAY PARRISH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00099-FL-1; 5:11-cv-00166-FL) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Ray Parrish, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Harris Cowley, Evan Rikhye, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher Ray Parrish appeals the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Parrish, No. 5:08-cr-00099-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 10, 2013) We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
