Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Reginald Morton, 14-7652 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-7652 Visitors: 16
Filed: Jan. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7652 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. REGINALD DARWIN MORTON, a/k/a Jay, a/k/a Boogie, a/k/a Jason, a/k/a Novacaine, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00024-JPJ-PMS-14) Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Se
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7652 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. REGINALD DARWIN MORTON, a/k/a Jay, a/k/a Boogie, a/k/a Jason, a/k/a Novacaine, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00024-JPJ-PMS-14) Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald Darwin Morton, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorneys, Mary Kathleen Carnell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Reginald Darwin Morton appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion for a new trial and motion for recusal of the district court judge. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Morton, No. 1:08-cr-00024-JPJ-PMS-14 (W.D. Va. Oct. 24, 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
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