Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Clyde Whitley, 14-7748 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-7748 Visitors: 18
Filed: Oct. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7748 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CLYDE KIRBY WHITLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00080-FL-1) Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 27, 2015 Amended: October 20, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7748 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CLYDE KIRBY WHITLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00080-FL-1) Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 27, 2015 Amended: October 20, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clyde Kirby Whitley, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Clyde Kirby Whitley noted an appeal from the district court’s order of November 10, 2014. In his informal brief, Whitley explains that he did not intend to appeal that order. Instead, he seeks review of a subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration. Whitley, however, did not file a notice of appeal of the order denying his motion for reconsideration in the district court. Because Whitley does not assert any error in the court’s November 10 order and the order Whitley seeks to appeal is not properly before this court, we dismiss Whitley’s appeal. 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. DISMISSED 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