Filed: Mar. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7725 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LINO H. HAYNES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:90-cr-00105-HCM-TEM-1) Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7725 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LINO H. HAYNES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:90-cr-00105-HCM-TEM-1) Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7725 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LINO H. HAYNES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:90-cr-00105-HCM-TEM-1) Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lino H. Haynes, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lino H. Haynes appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for correction of judgment under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Haynes, No. 2:90-cr-00105-HCM-TEM-1 (E.D. Va. Nov. 23, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
