United States v. Norton

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Norton

64 F. App'x 411

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Norton. Read the opinion of the Court — 17 F. App'x 98 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 3, 2003·No. Nos. 03-1336, 03-1394·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Richard Charles Norton appeals the district court’s order denying is motion for an evidentiary hearing and a subsequent order entering a stay of judgment pending appeal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Norton, No. 99-78 (W.D.Va. Jan. 31, 2003 & Mar. 21, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma[412]*412terials 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

PER CURIAM:

Richard Charles Norton appeals the district court’s order denying is motion for an evidentiary hearing and a subsequent order entering a stay of judgment pending appeal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Norton, No. 99-78 (W.D.Va. Jan. 31, 2003 & Mar. 21, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma[412]*412terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

United States v. Norton, 64 F. App'x 411 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

64 F. App'x 411 (United States v. Norton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.