Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Phillip Murphy, 17-7156 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 17-7156 Visitors: 18
Filed: Dec. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7156 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PHILLIP JEROME MURPHY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:15-cr-00103-RAJ-DEM-1) Submitted: December 21, 2017 Decided: December 28, 2017 Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cur
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7156 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PHILLIP JEROME MURPHY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:15-cr-00103-RAJ-DEM-1) Submitted: December 21, 2017 Decided: December 28, 2017 Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip Jerome Murphy, Appellant Pro Se. V. Kathleen Dougherty, William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia; Kevin Patrick Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Phillip Jerome Murphy appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment and void a criminal judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Murphy, No. 2:15-cr-00103-RAJ-DEM-1 (E.D. Va. July 17, 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
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