Filed: Apr. 12, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7356 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL A. HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-93-1) Submitted: March 19, 2004 Decided: April 12, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Harris, Appellant Pro S
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7356 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL A. HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-93-1) Submitted: March 19, 2004 Decided: April 12, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Harris, Appellant Pro Se..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7356 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL A. HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-93-1) Submitted: March 19, 2004 Decided: April 12, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael A. Harris appeals the district court’s orders denying his “Motion for Downward Departure and/or Relief from Sentencing Enhancements Through Reconsideration of a Sentence of Imprisonment” and motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Harris, No. CR-93-1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 4, 2003 & Sept. 2, 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 -
