Filed: Jan. 23, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7409 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES A. BUTLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-91-44) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7409 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES A. BUTLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-91-44) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion...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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7409 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES A. BUTLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-91-44) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Crawford Vick, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his mo- tion for reconsideration of the court's order denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Butler, No. CR-91-44 (E.D. Va. Aug. 8, 1996). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
