Filed: Mar. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7515 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HASSAAN HAAKIM RASHAAD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:01-cr-00195-MOC-1) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 1, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7515 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HASSAAN HAAKIM RASHAAD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:01-cr-00195-MOC-1) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 1, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7515 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HASSAAN HAAKIM RASHAAD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:01-cr-00195-MOC-1) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 1, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hassaan Haakim Rashaad, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Hassaan Haakim Rashaad appeals the district court’s order denying Rashaad’s motion for clarification of the schedule of restitution payments set forth in his 2002 criminal judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Rashaad, No. 3:01-cr-00195-MOC-1 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 16, 2015). 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
