Filed: Jun. 04, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6408 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CYRUS JONATHAN GEORGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-78) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 4, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cyrus Jonathan George,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6408 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CYRUS JONATHAN GEORGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-78) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 4, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cyrus Jonathan George, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6408 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CYRUS JONATHAN GEORGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-78) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 4, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cyrus Jonathan George, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Edward Johnston, United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Cyrus Jonathan George appeals the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part his motion to alter or amend his sentence. We have independently reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. George, No. CR-90-78 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 25, 2003). 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
