United States v. Michael Aaron Little

19 F.3d 12, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 11486, 1994 WL 67860
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 4, 1994
Docket93-6823
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 19 F.3d 12 (United States v. Michael Aaron Little) 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. Michael Aaron Little, 19 F.3d 12, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 11486, 1994 WL 67860 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

19 F.3d 12

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Michael Aaron LITTLE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 93-6823.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 17, 1993.
Decided March 4, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, District Judge. (CR-87-19-P, CA-92-40-P-3)

Michael Aaron Little, Appellant Pro Se.

Carl Horn, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, NC, for Appellee.

W.D.N.C. AFFIRMED.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 (1988) motion. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* United States v. Little, Nos. CR-87-19-P; CA-92-40-P-3 (W.D.N.C. July 9, 1993). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

*

We deny Little's pending motion objecting to the government's request for additional time in which to file an informal brief. We also deny his motion seeking reconsideration of the Clerk's order granting the request for additional time, and his motion for oral argument

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

Related

United States v. Michael Aaron Little
392 F.3d 671 (Fourth Circuit, 2004)
United States v. Little
Fourth Circuit, 2004

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 F.3d 12, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 11486, 1994 WL 67860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-michael-aaron-little-ca4-1994.