United States v. Michael Aaron Little, 19 F.3d 12 (4th Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Michael Aaron Little, 19 F.3d 12 (4th Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
41 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ian B. Freeman et al. v. P City of Keene et al. (nhd, 2021-08-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ian B. Freeman et al. v. P City of Keene et al.
D.N.H. · 2021 · confidence medium
Right to Life, 99 19 F.3d at 12.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Joshua Acoff
2d Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
See United States v. Regalado, 518 F.3d 143 , 149 10 n. 3 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam); United States v. Then, 56 F.3d 464, 466 (2d Cir. 1995); 11 United States v. Moore, 54 F.3d 92, 97-99 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Stevens, 19 F.3d 12 93, 96-97 (2d Cir. 1994).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Vica Coal Co. v. Crosby
S.D.W. Va · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Smith v. U.S. Sprint, 19 F.3d 12 , 1994 WL 62338, *4 (4th Cir.(Va.)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Michael Aaron Little
93-6823.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Mar 4, 1994.
19 F.3d 12
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Unpublished

19 F.3d 12

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Michael Aaron LITTLE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 93-6823.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 17, 1993.
Decided March 4, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, District Judge. (CR-87-19-P, CA-92-40-P-3)

Michael Aaron Little, Appellant Pro Se.

Carl Horn, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, NC, for Appellee.

W.D.N.C. AFFIRMED.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 (1988) motion. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.[*] United States v. Little, Nos. CR-87-19-P; CA-92-40-P-3 (W.D.N.C. July 9, 1993). 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

*

We deny Little's pending motion objecting to the government's request for additional time in which to file an informal brief. We also deny his motion seeking reconsideration of the Clerk's order granting the request for additional time, and his motion for oral argument