Filed: Mar. 03, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7590 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LAMONT HAROLD GARRISON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-98-132) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 3, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lamont Harold Garris
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7590 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LAMONT HAROLD GARRISON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-98-132) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 3, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lamont Harold Garriso..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7590 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LAMONT HAROLD GARRISON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-98-132) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 3, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lamont Harold Garrison, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lamont Harold Garrison appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a copy of his presentence report. 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. Garrison, No. CR-98-132 (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 2, 2005 & entered Aug. 3, 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 -
