Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Goins, 02-4075 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-4075 Visitors: 37
Filed: Jun. 18, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-4075 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIMMY GOINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge; Pamela Meade Sargent, Magistrate Judge. (M-01-14-2, M-01-15-2, M- 01-16-2, M-01-43-2, M-01-44-2, CR-02-5) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Jud
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-4075 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIMMY GOINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge; Pamela Meade Sargent, Magistrate Judge. (M-01-14-2, M-01-15-2, M- 01-16-2, M-01-43-2, M-01-44-2, CR-02-5) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew W. Greene, SMITH & GREENE, P.L.L.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, S. Randall Ramseyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Timmy Goins appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion for modification of his sentence to permit his sentences to run concurrently. We have reviewed the record, the magistrate judge’s order, and the district court’s order affirming the magistrate judge, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge and the district court. See United States v. Goins, Nos. M-01-14-2; M-01-15-2; M-01- 16-2; M-01-43-2; M-01-44-2; CR-02-5 (W.D. Va. Dec. 18 & 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
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