Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Shaun Poston, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document is a court ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that affirms the district court's denial of Shaun Autaleon Poston's "Request for Hearing and/or Summary Judgment" and "Motion to Recall Mandate in the Interest of Justice." The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasons for denying the motions. The court issued its ruling without oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-02-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-7855

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that affirms the district court's denial of Shaun Autaleon Poston's "Request for Hearing and/or Summary Judgment" and "Motion to Recall Mandate in the Interest of Justice." The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasons for denying the motions. The court issued its ruling without oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Shaun Poston, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that affirms the district court's denial of Shaun Autaleon Poston's "Request for Hearing and/or Summary Judgment" and "Motion to Recall Mandate in the Interest of Justice." The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasons for denying the motions. The court issued its ruling without oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-7855

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    SHAUN AUTALEON POSTON, a/k/a Shawn Autaleon Poston,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
    Richard L.
    Voorhees, District Judge. (5:99-cr-00012-RLV-8)

    Submitted:

    February 21, 2013

    Before AGEE and


    Circuit Judge.

    DAVIS,

    Circuit

    Decided:

    Judges,

    and

    February 26, 2013

    HAMILTON,

    Senior

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Shaun Autaleon Poston, Appellant Pro Se.


    William A. Brafford,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Adam Christopher Morris, Craig
    Darren Randall, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte,
    North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Shaun

    Autaleon

    Poston

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order denying his Request for Hearing and/or Summary Judgment


    and his Motion to Recall Mandate in the Interest of Justice.
    We

    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    United

    (W.D.N.C.

    Oct.

    States
    15,

    v.

    2012).

    Poston,
    We

    No.

    dispense

    5:99-cr-00012-RLV-8
    with

    oral

    argument

    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented


    in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
    the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like