Filed: Jul. 27, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6767 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN JAIRO GOMEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-385-AW; CA-99-3288-AW) Submitted: July 9, 2004 Decided: July 27, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Jairo Gomez, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6767 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN JAIRO GOMEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-385-AW; CA-99-3288-AW) Submitted: July 9, 2004 Decided: July 27, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Jairo Gomez, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6767 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN JAIRO GOMEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-385-AW; CA-99-3288-AW) Submitted: July 9, 2004 Decided: July 27, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Jairo Gomez, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Suzanne Skalla, Assistant United States Attorney, Deborah A. Johnston, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Jairo Gomez appeals the district court’s order denying his “Motion to Quash and Correct Sentence Pursuant to Plain Error.” 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. Gomez, Nos. CR-95-385-AW; CA-99-3288- AW (D. Md. Apr. 13, 3004). 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 -
