Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Charles Junior Locklear, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    Charles Junior Locklear appealed the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a criminal judgment. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's reasoning in denying the motion. It dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the court materials. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Locklear's Rule 60(b) motion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-07-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-6043

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Charles Junior Locklear appealed the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a criminal judgment. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's reasoning in denying the motion. It dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the court materials. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Locklear's Rule 60(b) motion.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Charles Junior Locklear, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Charles Junior Locklear appealed the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a criminal judgment. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's reasoning in denying the motion. It dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the court materials. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Locklear's Rule 60(b) motion.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 11-6043

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    CHARLES JUNIOR LOCKLEAR, a/k/a Ron,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (7:09-cr-00101-BO-1)

    Submitted:

    June 16, 2011

    Decided:

    July 21, 2011

    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles Junior Locklear, Appellant Pro Se. J. Frank Bradsher,


    Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles Junior Locklear appeals the district courts
    order

    denying

    his

    Fed.

    R.

    Civ.

    P.

    60(b)

    motion.

    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    We

    have

    Accordingly,

    we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court.


    Locklear

    v.

    United

    Nov. 9, 2010).

    States,

    No.

    7:09-cr-00101-BO-1

    (E.D.N.C.

    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