Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    United States v. White, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Rodney White appealed the district court's dismissal of his action seeking to correct a procedurally deficient forfeiture as untimely. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court denied White's request for counsel and ruled based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its December 22, 1998 decision. The facts and legal arguments were determined to be adequately explained in the materials, so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    United States v. White, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    Rodney White appealed the district court's dismissal of his action seeking to correct a procedurally deficient forfeiture as untimely. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court denied White's request for counsel and ruled based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its December 22, 1998 decision. The facts and legal arguments were determined to be adequately explained in the materials, so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-03-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-6029

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Rodney White appealed the district court's dismissal of his action seeking to correct a procedurally deficient forfeiture as untimely. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court denied White's request for counsel and ruled based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its December 22, 1998 decision. The facts and legal arguments were determined to be adequately explained in the materials, so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views2 pages

    United States v. White, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Rodney White appealed the district court's dismissal of his action seeking to correct a procedurally deficient forfeiture as untimely. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court denied White's request for counsel and ruled based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its December 22, 1998 decision. The facts and legal arguments were determined to be adequately explained in the materials, so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-6029

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    RODNEY WHITE,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.
    (CR-91-106)

    Submitted:

    February 25, 1999

    Decided:

    March 10, 1999

    Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Rodney White, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Rodney White appeals the district courts order dismissing as
    untimely his action seeking to correct a procedurally deficient
    forfeiture.

    We have reviewed the record and the district courts

    opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Whites


    motion for the appointment of counsel and affirm on the reasoning
    of the district court.

    See United States v. White, No. CR-91-106

    (E.D. Va. Dec. 22, 1998).

    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

    You might also like