Filed: Jul. 14, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6300 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PEDRO ALONSO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-00-136-1-7-F) Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: July 14, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pedro Alonso, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6300 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PEDRO ALONSO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-00-136-1-7-F) Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: July 14, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pedro Alonso, Appellant Pro Se. J..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6300 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PEDRO ALONSO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-00-136-1-7-F) Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: July 14, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pedro Alonso, Appellant Pro Se. J. Frank Bradsher, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Pedro Alonso appeals the district court’s order denying his Motion to Modify Condition of Fine Imposed. 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. Alonso, No. CR-00-136-1-7-F (E.D.N.C. Jan. 7, 2004). 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 -
