Filed: Sep. 11, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6908 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus REINALDO LOZANO, a/k/a Ray, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-86-35-NN) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 11, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reinald
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6908 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus REINALDO LOZANO, a/k/a Ray, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-86-35-NN) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 11, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reinaldo..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6908
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
REINALDO LOZANO, a/k/a Ray,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-86-35-NN)
Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 11, 2000
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reinaldo Lozano, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Anthony Exley, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Reinaldo Lozano appeals the district court’s order denying his
motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to correct his sen-
tence. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-
ion and order and find no reversible error. See United States v.
Williams,
674 F.2d 310, 312 (4th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, we grant
Lozano leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and affirm the district
court’s denial of his motion to reconsider. 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
2