W. Lee v. Carroll Murraybey

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00190-WO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court. [998975421]. Mailed to: Carroll Murraybey. [12-7159]

Appeal: 12-7159

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/06/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7159

W. DAVID LEE, Judge Cabarrus County Superior Court,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARROLL MURRAYBEY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:12-cr-00190-WO-1)

Submitted:

November 2, 2012

Decided:

November 6, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Carroll Murraybey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7159

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/06/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Carroll Murraybey appeals the district court’s order
remanding his state criminal prosecution to North Carolina state
court.

Because

district

court’s

Murraybey

fails

conclusion

to

that

challenge
removal

on

the

improper

was

appeal

he

arguably has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order.
In any event, to the extent the district court relied on 28
U.S.C. § 1443 (2006) in concluding that removal was improper, we
find no reversible error and affirm this portion of the district
court’s order on the reasoning of the district court.

See Lee

v. Murraybey, No. 1:12-cr-00190-WO-1 (M.D.N.C. June 8, 2012);
see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006).

To the extent that the

district court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction
under

removal

appeal.

provisions

other

than

§ 1443,

we

dismiss

the

See Severonickel v. Gaston Reymenants, 115 F.3d 265,

266-69 (4th Cir. 1997); Noel v. McCain, 538 F.2d 633, 635 (4th
Cir. 1976).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

2