Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Charles NORTON, Defendant-Appellant, and Cynthia K. Norton, Claimant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Charles Norton, Defendant-Appellant, and Cynthia K. Norton, Claimant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-03
Citations: 64 F. App'x 411
Docket Number: Nos. 03-1336, 03-1394
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Charles NORTON, Defendant-Appellant, and Cynthia K. Norton, Claimant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Charles Norton, Defendant-Appellant, and Cynthia K. Norton, Claimant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 64
Pages: 411–412

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Charles NORTON, Defendant-Appellant, and Cynthia K. Norton, Claimant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Charles Norton, Defendant-Appellant, and Cynthia K. Norton, Claimant.
Nos. 03-1336, 03-1394.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 29, 2003.
Decided June 3, 2003.
Richard Charles Norton, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Sharon Burham, Office of the United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Richard Charles Norton appeals the district court's order denying is motion for an evidentiary hearing and a subsequent order entering a stay of judgment pending appeal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Norton, No. 99-78 (W.D.Va. Jan. 31, 2003 & Mar. 21, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.