United States v. Watson

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Watson

55 F. App'x 160

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Watson. Read the opinion of the Court — 43 F. App'x 696 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 24, 2003·No. 02-7617·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Curtis Lee Watson appeals the district court’s order denying his “Motion for Lifting of the Current Federal Detainer.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Watson, No. CR-S8-201-A (E.D.Va. Oct. 9, 2002). 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

PER CURIAM.

Curtis Lee Watson appeals the district court’s order denying his “Motion for Lifting of the Current Federal Detainer.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Watson, No. CR-S8-201-A (E.D.Va. Oct. 9, 2002). 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.

United States v. Watson, 55 F. App'x 160 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

55 F. App'x 160 (United States v. Watson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.