Filed: May 14, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4913 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEFFREY BRIAN COHEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:14-cr-00310-WDQ-1) Submitted: April 14, 2015 Decided: May 14, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Brian Cohen, Appellant Pr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4913 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEFFREY BRIAN COHEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:14-cr-00310-WDQ-1) Submitted: April 14, 2015 Decided: May 14, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Brian Cohen, Appellant Pro..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4913
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY BRIAN COHEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:14-cr-00310-WDQ-1)
Submitted: April 14, 2015 Decided: May 14, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Brian Cohen, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Mason Gruber,
Joyce Kallam McDonald, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Brian Cohen appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion to strike orders tolling the Speedy Trial Act
period, 18 U.S.C. § 3164 (2012), and for immediate release. 1 We
grant Cohen’s motions to expedite appellate review so far as is
consistent with the workload of the court. See Fed. R. App. P.
9(a). However, we have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. 2 Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. United States v. Cohen, No. 1:14-cr-
00310-WDQ-1 (D. Md. Nov. 25, 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
1
The Government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction. We conclude that we have
jurisdiction; therefore, we deny the Government’s motion to
dismiss.
2
We deny Cohen’s motion to supplement his informal brief
because the proffered supplement concerns evidence not in the
record on appeal, and Cohen has not properly supplemented the
record. See 4th Cir. R. 10(d).
2