Filed: Mar. 31, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4570 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. SAMAD MADIR HARVEY, a/k/a Wes, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00005-IMK-JSK-1) Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: March 31, 2014 Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4570 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. SAMAD MADIR HARVEY, a/k/a Wes, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00005-IMK-JSK-1) Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: March 31, 2014 Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4570
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SAMAD MADIR HARVEY, a/k/a Wes,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00005-IMK-JSK-1)
Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: March 31, 2014
Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, Kristen Leddy, Research and
Writing Specialist, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg,
West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samad Madir Harvey appeals from his conviction for
being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, he
challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for a new
trial. We review the district court’s ruling for an abuse of
discretion. United States v. Smith,
451 F.3d 209, 216 (4th Cir.
2006). We have carefully considered the parties’ briefs on
appeal and the record, and we conclude that the district court’s
reasoning was appropriate and contained no abuse of discretion.
(See J.A. at 326-43). Accordingly, we affirm. 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