Filed: Oct. 08, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6799 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. COLE MACHADO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:11-cr-00096-RBS-TEM-1) Submitted: September 29, 2014 Decided: October 8, 2014 Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cole Machado, Appellant P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6799 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. COLE MACHADO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:11-cr-00096-RBS-TEM-1) Submitted: September 29, 2014 Decided: October 8, 2014 Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cole Machado, Appellant Pr..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6799
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
COLE MACHADO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:11-cr-00096-RBS-TEM-1)
Submitted: September 29, 2014 Decided: October 8, 2014
Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cole Machado, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cole Machado appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2012) motion. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United
States v. Machado, No. 2:11-cr-00096-RBS-TEM-1 (E.D. Va. May 1,
2014). 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