Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. William Bond, 14-6017 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-6017 Visitors: 20
Filed: Mar. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6017 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM C. BOND, Party-in-Interest – Appellant, and THOMAS L. BROMWELL, SR.; W. DAVID STOFFREGEN; MARY PATRICIA BROMWELL, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:05-cr-00358-JFM-1) Submitted: March 11, 2014 Decided: March 25, 2014 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circ
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6017 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM C. BOND, Party-in-Interest – Appellant, and THOMAS L. BROMWELL, SR.; W. DAVID STOFFREGEN; MARY PATRICIA BROMWELL, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:05-cr-00358-JFM-1) Submitted: March 11, 2014 Decided: March 25, 2014 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William C. Bond, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen O’Connell Gavin, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: William C. Bond appeals the district court’s orders denying his “Post Judgment Motion to Disqualify Government Attorneys and Request for Expedited Consideration,” “Motion to Unseal Grand Jury Records re: the Disqualified Attorneys,” and “Motion to Rule, Motion to Make Docket Live, and Motion to Put Letter of October 8, 2012, onto the Docket.” We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err in denying Bond’s motions. Accordingly, we affirm. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Bond’s motion to recuse and transfer, and deny his motion to expedite as moot. 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 3
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer