Filed: Jul. 22, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7276 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROHAN ST. JOSEPH KEATING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-93-66-N) Submitted: July 6, 1999 Decided: July 22, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rohan St. Joseph Keating, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7276 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROHAN ST. JOSEPH KEATING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-93-66-N) Submitted: July 6, 1999 Decided: July 22, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rohan St. Joseph Keating, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7276 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROHAN ST. JOSEPH KEATING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-93-66-N) Submitted: July 6, 1999 Decided: July 22, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rohan St. Joseph Keating, Appellant Pro Se. Carol M. Marx, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion for a new trial. 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. Keating, No. CR-93-66-N (E.D. Va Aug. 7, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
