Filed: Jul. 15, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6469 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JESUS ALBERTO SARMIENTO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-389-AW) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jesus Alberto Sarmiento, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6469 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JESUS ALBERTO SARMIENTO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-389-AW) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jesus Alberto Sarmiento, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6469
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JESUS ALBERTO SARMIENTO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-95-389-AW)
Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jesus Alberto Sarmiento, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Suzanne Skalla,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Sarmiento moved in the district court for an extension of time
in which to file a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999) motion.
The court denied the motion, and Sarmiento filed a motion for re-
consideration of that order, which the court denied. Sarmiento now
appeals the denial of the motion for reconsideration. We have
reviewed the record and find that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in denying Sarmiento’s motion for reconsideration.
See National Org. for Women v. Operation Rescue,
47 F.3d 667, 669
(4th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order. 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