Filed: May 02, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-8069 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERTO SORTO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:96-cr-00251-AVB) Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: May 2, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roberto Sorto, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-8069 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERTO SORTO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:96-cr-00251-AVB) Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: May 2, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roberto Sorto, Appellant P..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-8069 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERTO SORTO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:96-cr-00251-AVB) Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: May 2, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roberto Sorto, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roberto Sorto appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to produce documents under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Sorto, No 1:96-cr-00251-AVB (E.D. Va. Nov. 28, 2006). 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 -
