Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Sabur, 00-4446 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-4446 Visitors: 24
Filed: Nov. 21, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-4446 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WAKEEL ABDUL SABUR, a/k/a Willie Lee Seward, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CR-99-73) Submitted: November 3, 2000 Decided: November 21, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cra
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-4446 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WAKEEL ABDUL SABUR, a/k/a Willie Lee Seward, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CR-99-73) Submitted: November 3, 2000 Decided: November 21, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Craig P. Tiller, DAVIDSON, SAKOLOSKY, MOSELEY & TILLER, P.C., Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Wakeel Abdul Sabur appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to withdraw guilty plea and the sentence imposed as a result of the guilty plea. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion denying Sabur’s motion to withdraw his plea and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Sabur, No. CR-99-73 (W.D. Va. May 31, 2000). Moreover, we disagree with Sabur’s contention on appeal that his plea agreement precluded enhancement of his sentence following a finding that he was a career criminal. 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer