Filed: Dec. 07, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7181 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:97-cr-00053-PJM-1) Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 7, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Damon Emanuel Elliott
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7181 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:97-cr-00053-PJM-1) Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 7, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Damon Emanuel Elliott,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7181
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:97-cr-00053-PJM-1)
Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 7, 2010
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Damon Emanuel Elliott appeals the district court’s
paperless order denying his motions for copy work, for leave to
appeal, and to review his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3742
(2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm. United States v. Elliott, No.
8:97-cr-00053-PJM-1 (D. Md. Aug. 2, 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