Filed: Jul. 03, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7595 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KIRKWOOD DONNELL CABINESS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (4:02-cr-70031-NKM) Submitted: June 6, 2008 Decided: July 3, 2008 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kirkwood Donnell Cabiness, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7595 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KIRKWOOD DONNELL CABINESS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (4:02-cr-70031-NKM) Submitted: June 6, 2008 Decided: July 3, 2008 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kirkwood Donnell Cabiness, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7595 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KIRKWOOD DONNELL CABINESS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (4:02-cr-70031-NKM) Submitted: June 6, 2008 Decided: July 3, 2008 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kirkwood Donnell Cabiness, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kirkwood Cabiness appeals the district court’s order denying his motions to compel and for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Cabiness, No. 4:02-cr-70031- NKM) (W.D. Va. Oct. 16, 2007). 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-
