Filed: Jun. 19, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7731 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEENAN KESTER COFIELD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:04-cr-00099-MJG) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 19, 2007 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keenan Kester Cofield, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7731 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEENAN KESTER COFIELD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:04-cr-00099-MJG) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 19, 2007 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keenan Kester Cofield, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7731 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEENAN KESTER COFIELD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:04-cr-00099-MJG) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 19, 2007 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keenan Kester Cofield, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Matthew Schenning, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Keenan Kester Cofield appeals the district court’s marginal order denying his motion to reconsider, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), the denial of his “motion to correct sentence.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Cofield’s motion to remand and affirm. 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 -
