Filed: Jun. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6567 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LENNELL DYCHES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:06-cr-00136-JFA-1) Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015 Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lennell Dyches, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6567 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LENNELL DYCHES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:06-cr-00136-JFA-1) Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015 Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lennell Dyches, Appellant P..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6567 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LENNELL DYCHES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:06-cr-00136-JFA-1) Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015 Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lennell Dyches, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lennell Dyches appeals the district court’s order denying his self-styled “Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction[.]” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Dyches, No. 8:06-cr- 00136-JFA-1 (D.S.C. Apr. 9, 2015). 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
