United States v. Whorley

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Whorley

669 F. App'x 669

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 18, 2016

DocketNo. 16-7090

StatusPublished

This text of 669 F. App'x 669 (United States v. Whorley) 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. Whorley, 669 F. App'x 669 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gary Vincent Whorley appeals the district court’s order denying his “motion to produce notarized document.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Whorley, No. 3:15-cr-00010-GMG-RWT-1 (N.D.W. Va., Aug. 1, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before [670]*670this 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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gary Vincent Whorley appeals the district court’s order denying his “motion to produce notarized document.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Whorley, No. 3:15-cr-00010-GMG-RWT-1 (N.D.W. Va., Aug. 1, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before [670]*670this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

669 F. App'x 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-whorley-ca4-2016.