Filed: May 13, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8445 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL R. RAY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:02-cr-00687-TLW-1) Submitted: April 29, 2009 Decided: May 13, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael R. Ray, Appellant Pro Se. Ar
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8445 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL R. RAY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:02-cr-00687-TLW-1) Submitted: April 29, 2009 Decided: May 13, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael R. Ray, Appellant Pro Se. Art..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8445 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL R. RAY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:02-cr-00687-TLW-1) Submitted: April 29, 2009 Decided: May 13, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael R. Ray, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael R. Ray appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions to amend his restitution order and for reconsideration of the district court’s denial of his motion to amend his restitution order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. United States v. Ray, No. 4:02-cr-00687-TLW-1 (D.S.C. Apr. 22, 2008; Nov. 7, 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
