Filed: Mar. 19, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7778 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DURWOOD WAYNE STONE, a/k/a Larue Godwin, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Lacy H. Thornburg, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-91-106) Submitted: January 12, 1999 Decided: March 19, 1999 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7778 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DURWOOD WAYNE STONE, a/k/a Larue Godwin, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Lacy H. Thornburg, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-91-106) Submitted: January 12, 1999 Decided: March 19, 1999 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. D..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7778 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DURWOOD WAYNE STONE, a/k/a Larue Godwin, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Lacy H. Thornburg, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-91-106) Submitted: January 12, 1999 Decided: March 19, 1999 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Durwood Wayne Stone, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Durwood Stone appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to amend his presentence investigation report. We have reviewed the record 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. Stone, No. CR-91-106 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 16, 1998). 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
