Filed: Mar. 08, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7345 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LOFTON HOWARD LAMBERT, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-5) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lofto
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7345 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LOFTON HOWARD LAMBERT, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-5) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lofton..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7345 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LOFTON HOWARD LAMBERT, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-5) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lofton Howard Lambert, III, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Vir- ginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lofton Howard Lambert, III, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to correct sentence. We have reviewed the rec- ord and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Lambert, No. CA-93-5 (W.D. Va. Aug. 27, 1998). We deny Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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
