United States v. Ernest Lee Blankenship

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit January 14, 1997

United States v. Ernest Lee Blankenship, 106 F.3d 409 (9th Cir. 1997)

1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 25795; 1997 WL 21226

Opinion

106 F.3d 409

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Ernest Lee BLANKENSHIP, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-30119.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 8, 1997.*
Decided Jan. 14, 1997.

Before: ALDISERT**, PREGERSON, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM***

After a thorough review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to 9th Cir.R. 34-4 and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)

Honorable Ruggero J. Aldisert, Senior Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Reference

Status: Unpublished