Filed: Mar. 27, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7766 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KAREEM JAMAL CURRENCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00231-JRS-1) Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014 Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kareem Jamal Currence, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7766 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KAREEM JAMAL CURRENCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00231-JRS-1) Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014 Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kareem Jamal Currence, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7766 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KAREEM JAMAL CURRENCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00231-JRS-1) Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014 Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kareem Jamal Currence, Appellant Pro Se. Brian R. Hood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kareem Jamal Currence appeals the district court’s order denying his self-styled Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Currence, No. 3:05-cr-00231-JRS-1 (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
