Filed: Oct. 28, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7109 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICHARD A. ORR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (2:00-cr-10067-jpj-1) Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 28, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard A. Orr, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7109 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICHARD A. ORR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (2:00-cr-10067-jpj-1) Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 28, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard A. Orr, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7109 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICHARD A. ORR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (2:00-cr-10067-jpj-1) Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 28, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard A. Orr, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Richard A. Orr appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to correct errors in the Presentence Investigation 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. Orr, No. 2:00-cr- 10067-jpj-1 (W.D. Va. June 19, 2008). 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
