Filed: Oct. 31, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7222 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID M. SCATES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-98-87) Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 31, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David M. S
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7222 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID M. SCATES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-98-87) Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 31, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David M. Sc..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7222 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID M. SCATES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-98-87) Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 31, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David M. Scates, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David M. Scates appeals the district court’s order denying his “Motion to Correct Record” pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Scates, No. CR-98-87 (E.D. Va. July 18, 2005). 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 -
