Filed: Jul. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6181 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, v. DANIEL H. KING, Respondent - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:10-hc-02009-FL) Submitted: June 20, 2017 Decided: July 11, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel H. Ki
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6181 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, v. DANIEL H. KING, Respondent - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:10-hc-02009-FL) Submitted: June 20, 2017 Decided: July 11, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel H. Kin..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6181 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, v. DANIEL H. KING, Respondent - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:10-hc-02009-FL) Submitted: June 20, 2017 Decided: July 11, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel H. King, Appellant Pro Se. G. Norman Acker, III, Edward D. Gray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Michael Bredenberg, Michael Lockridge, Special Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel H. King appeals the district court’s text order denying his motion to vacate his civil commitment and dismiss his case for lack of 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. King, No. 5:10-hc-02009-FL (E.D.N.C. Feb. 6, 2017). 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