United States of America v. Terry William Stewart

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6521
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TERRY WILLIAM STEWART,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-6780
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TERRY WILLIAM STEWART,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 06-6111
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
versus
TERRY WILLIAM STEWART,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CR-01-11)
Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 19, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terry William Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Ann Youngs;
Matthew Theodore Martens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY;
Anne Magee Tompkins, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
In Appeal No. 05-6521, Terry Stewart seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of
the court’s prior order dismissing without prejudice his petition
for supersedeas and sanctions for abuse of process. In Appeal No.
05-6780, Stewart appeals the district court’s order denying his
motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions against the U.S. Attorney
and his paralegal. In Appeal No. 06-6111, Stewart appeals the
district court’s order denying his motion for new trial. We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. United States v. Stewart, No. CR-01-11
(W.D.N.C. filed Mar. 16, 2005 & entered Mar. 18, 2005; filed Apr.
13, 2005 & entered Apr. 15, 2005; filed Nov. 5, 2005 & entered
Nov. 7, 2005). We further deny Stewart’s motion for “Supersedeas
In Court of Appeals.” 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

-- 3 of 3 --