Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Silvers, 95-6975 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6975 Visitors: 38
Filed: Aug. 06, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6975 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEVEN A. SILVERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-87-144-Y) Submitted: January 2, 1996 Decided: August 6, 1996 Before HALL and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 95-6975



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

STEVEN A. SILVERS,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting
by designation. (CR-87-144-Y)


Submitted:   January 2, 1996              Decided:   August 6, 1996


Before HALL and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Steven A. Silvers, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew George Warrens Norman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm the district court's order. See United States v. Ursery,
___ U.S. ___, 
64 U.S.L.W. 4565
, 4566, 4572 (U.S. June 24, 1996)

(Nos. 95-345; 95-346). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-

rials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.




                                                          AFFIRMED




                                2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer