Filed: May 20, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6023 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee, versus PATRICIA RAE FRUETEL, Petitioner - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-70) Submitted: April 29, 2002 Decided: May 20, 2002 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patricia Rae Fruetel, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6023 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee, versus PATRICIA RAE FRUETEL, Petitioner - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-70) Submitted: April 29, 2002 Decided: May 20, 2002 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patricia Rae Fruetel, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6023 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee, versus PATRICIA RAE FRUETEL, Petitioner - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-70) Submitted: April 29, 2002 Decided: May 20, 2002 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patricia Rae Fruetel, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Patricia Rae Fruetel appeals the district court’s order denying her petition to modify the terms of her supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(1) (West 2000). 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. Fruetel, No. CR-91-70 (E.D. Va. Nov. 26, 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
