United States v. Nesbitt

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 16, 2003
Docket02-4482
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Nesbitt (United States v. Nesbitt) 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. Nesbitt, (4th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-4482

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EUGENE NESBITT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CR-01-597)

Submitted: December 10, 2002 Decided: January 16, 2003

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Denise C. Barrett, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Paul M. Tiao, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Following a conditional guilty plea, Eugene Nesbitt was

convicted of possessing ammunition after having been convicted of

a felony, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g) (West 2000), and sentenced to

180 months in prison. Nesbitt reserved his right to appeal the

district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained

during a search of his vehicle and has appealed that order. We have

reviewed the record and considered the arguments made on appeal,

and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s denial of the motion to suppress and we therefore

affirm Nesbitt’s conviction. 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

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

Related

Unlawful acts
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Nesbitt, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-nesbitt-ca4-2003.