Admiralty
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nathaniel BURRESS, Defendant-Appellant
487 F. App'x 82·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·2012
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Brief incoming
Source-anchored Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nathaniel BURRESS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-7142.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 2, 2012.
Decided: Nov. 6, 2012.
Nathaniel Burress, Appellant Pro Se. Randolph John Bernard, Office of the United States Attorney, John Castle Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:]
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Burress appeals the district court’s order denying his self-styled “Petition for Redress of Grievance in Admiralty.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Burress, No. 5:04-cr-00031-FPS-JES-1, 2012 WL 2368985 (N.D.W.Va. June 21, 2012). 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.