Filed: Feb. 27, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8128 TIMMY RICHARDSON, Defendant - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-98-290-3) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 27, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timmy Richardson, A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8128 TIMMY RICHARDSON, Defendant - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-98-290-3) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 27, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timmy Richardson, Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8128 TIMMY RICHARDSON, Defendant - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-98-290-3) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 27, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timmy Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. N. George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Timmy Richardson appeals from the district court’s order de- nying his 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (1994) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Richardson, No. CR-98-290-3 (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 12, 2001; entered Dec. 13, 2001). 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
