Filed: Sep. 04, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6448 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILFREDO GONZALEZ LORA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-98-358-A) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 4, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6448 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILFREDO GONZALEZ LORA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-98-358-A) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 4, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6448 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILFREDO GONZALEZ LORA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-98-358-A) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 4, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions for a copy of a government witness’ presentence report, for reconsideration, and for recusal of the district court judge. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Lora, No. CR-98-358-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 2, 2002; Feb. 4, 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
