Filed: Mar. 03, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6172 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARK GREGORY YOUNG, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:97-cr-00288-CCB-l) Submitted: February 26, 2009 Decided: March 3, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Gregory Young, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6172 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARK GREGORY YOUNG, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:97-cr-00288-CCB-l) Submitted: February 26, 2009 Decided: March 3, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Gregory Young, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6172 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARK GREGORY YOUNG, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:97-cr-00288-CCB-l) Submitted: February 26, 2009 Decided: March 3, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Gregory Young, Appellant Pro Se. Bonnie S. Greenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mark Gregory Young appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for adjustment of supervised release. Because Young was unconditionally released on August 26, 2008, with no term of supervised release, we dismiss the appeal as moot. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 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. DISMISSED 2
