Filed: May 27, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6174 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ETHAN JEROME MOORE, a/k/a Nate, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (3:99-cr-00090-1) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 27, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ethan Je
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6174 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ETHAN JEROME MOORE, a/k/a Nate, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (3:99-cr-00090-1) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 27, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ethan Jer..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6174 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ETHAN JEROME MOORE, a/k/a Nate, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (3:99-cr-00090-1) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 27, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ethan Jerome Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ethan Jerome Moore appeals the district court’s order denying as moot his motion for Sentencing Guidelines information. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Moore, No. 3:99-cr-00090-1 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 13, 2010). 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
