Filed: Mar. 29, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JANISON VEAL, a/k/a Jason, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:02-cr-00043-JPB-JES-1) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ja
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JANISON VEAL, a/k/a Jason, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:02-cr-00043-JPB-JES-1) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jan..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JANISON VEAL, a/k/a Jason, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:02-cr-00043-JPB-JES-1) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Janison Veal, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Janison Veal appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 motion to correct a clerical error. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Veal, No. 3:02-cr-00043-JPB- JES-1 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 14, 2012). 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
