United States v. Littlejohn

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Littlejohn

585 F. App'x 268

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 25, 2014

DocketNo. 14-6947

StatusPublished

This text of 585 F. App'x 268 (United States v. Littlejohn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Littlejohn, 585 F. App'x 268 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial in 1991, Thomas Floyd Littlejohn was convicted of a multitude of drug charges and sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the judgment. See United States v. Fletcher, 993 F.2d 1540 (4th Cir.1993) (Case No. 91-5194). In June 2014, Littlejohn filed a second notice of appeal of the criminal judgment. However, because we have previously affirmed this criminal judgment, we dismiss the appeal as duplicative and untimely. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial in 1991, Thomas Floyd Littlejohn was convicted of a multitude of drug charges and sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the judgment. See United States v. Fletcher, 993 F.2d 1540 (4th Cir.1993) (Case No. 91-5194). In June 2014, Littlejohn filed a second notice of appeal of the criminal judgment. However, because we have previously affirmed this criminal judgment, we dismiss the appeal as duplicative and untimely. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

585 F. App'x 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-littlejohn-ca4-2014.