Filed: Sep. 17, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6307 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BOBBY BLAINE RASNAKE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Abingdon. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CR-93-22) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6307 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BOBBY BLAINE RASNAKE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Abingdon. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CR-93-22) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6307 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BOBBY BLAINE RASNAKE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Abingdon. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CR-93-22) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Blaine Rasnake, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 a reduction of his sentence. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Ac- cordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Rasnake, No. CR-93-22 (W.D. Va. Jan. 11, 1996). We dis- pense 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
