Filed: Mar. 16, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7494 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JANELL TOVAH FISHER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:13-cr-00024-HEH-1) Submitted: March 14, 2017 Decided: March 16, 2017 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Janell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7494 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JANELL TOVAH FISHER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:13-cr-00024-HEH-1) Submitted: March 14, 2017 Decided: March 16, 2017 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Janell T..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7494
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JANELL TOVAH FISHER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:13-cr-00024-HEH-1)
Submitted: March 14, 2017 Decided: March 16, 2017
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Janell Tovah Fisher, Appellant Pro Se. Erik Sean Siebert,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Janell Tovah Fisher seeks to appeal, for the second time,
his 2013 conviction and sentence for possession with intent to
distribute cocaine. We affirmed the district court’s judgment
on Fisher’s first direct appeal. United States v. Fisher, 554
F. App’x 214 (4th Cir. 2014) (No. 13-4502). Accordingly, we
deny the motion to appoint counsel and dismiss the instant
appeal as duplicative. 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.
DISMISSED
2