Filed: Mar. 05, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7874 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEORGE L. HAYNESWORTH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-00-65) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 5, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George L. Haynesworth, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7874 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEORGE L. HAYNESWORTH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-00-65) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 5, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George L. Haynesworth, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7874 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEORGE L. HAYNESWORTH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-00-65) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 5, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George L. Haynesworth, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: George L. Haynesworth appeals the district court’s order deny- ing his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Haynesworth, No. CR-00-65 (E.D. Va. Sept. 25, 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
