The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-7082•United States of America v. William Lewis Hinson
00-7082Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 28, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7082
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM LEWIS HINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior
District Judge. (CR-93-258-P)
Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 28, 2001
Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Lewis Hinson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack Higdon, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
William Lewis Hinson appeals the district court’s order deny-
ing his “Motion to Quash Indictment and Dismiss Action for Lack of
Jurisdiction.” We have reviewed the record and the district court’s
opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Hin-
son’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and affirm on
the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Hinson,
No. CR-93-258-P (W.D.N.C. Jul. 21, 2000). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.