Filed: Jul. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6630 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LLOYD EMMANUEL BEST, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (7:09-cr-00132-H-1) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014 Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6630 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LLOYD EMMANUEL BEST, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (7:09-cr-00132-H-1) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014 Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6630 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LLOYD EMMANUEL BEST, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (7:09-cr-00132-H-1) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014 Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lloyd Emmanuel Best, Appellant Pro Se. Gaston Williams, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lloyd Emmanuel Best appeals the district court’s order denying his self-styled “Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Lack of Exclusive Legislative and Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure[.]” We have reviewed the record and agree that Best’s motion is meritless. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Best, No. 7:09-cr-00132-H-1 (E.D.N.C. March 31, 2014). 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