Filed: Feb. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7109 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. UNDER SEAL 1, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:16-cr-00056-1) Submitted: February 15, 2018 Decided: February 16, 2018 Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Ward Morgan, LAW OFF
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7109 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. UNDER SEAL 1, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:16-cr-00056-1) Submitted: February 15, 2018 Decided: February 16, 2018 Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Ward Morgan, LAW OFFI..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7109
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
UNDER SEAL 1,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:16-cr-00056-1)
Submitted: February 15, 2018 Decided: February 16, 2018
Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward Ward Morgan, LAW OFFICE OF WARD MORGAN, Bluefield, West Virginia,
for Appellant. Monica D. Coleman, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Under Seal 1 appeals the district court’s order denying relief on the Government’s
postjudgment motion. We dismiss the appeal because the order is not reviewable. See
United States v. Pridgen,
64 F.3d 147, 149-50 (4th Cir. 1995). 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