Filed: Aug. 29, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6806 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NATHANIEL R. WEBB, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00181-BO-1) Submitted: August 17, 2018 Decided: August 29, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel R.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6806 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NATHANIEL R. WEBB, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00181-BO-1) Submitted: August 17, 2018 Decided: August 29, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel R. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6806 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NATHANIEL R. WEBB, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00181-BO-1) Submitted: August 17, 2018 Decided: August 29, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel R. Webb, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nathaniel R. Webb appeals the district court’s orders remanding this action to state court and denying Webb’s motion to reconsider pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See North Carolina v. Webb, No. 5:18-cr-00181-BO- 1 (E.D.N.C. May 16, 2018 & June 25, 2018). 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
