Filed: Aug. 14, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-5682 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES ARTHUR LOVELESS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-245-A) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 14, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-5682 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES ARTHUR LOVELESS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-245-A) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 14, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-5682
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES ARTHUR LOVELESS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief
District Judge. (CR-95-245-A)
Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 14, 1996
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roger G. Nord, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey,
United States Attorney, Michael E. O'Hare, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles Arthur Loveless seeks to appeal his 18-month sentence
for escape, 18 U.S.C.A. § 751(a) (West Supp. 1996). Loveless, who
is HIV positive, contends that the district court erred in refusing
him a departure below the guideline range under USSG § 5K2.11,
p.s.* (avoidance of greater harm), or USSG § 5H1.4, p.s. (extrao-
rdinary physical impairment). The district court's decision not to
depart is not reviewable on appeal. United States v. Bayerle,
898
F.2d 28, 31 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
498 U.S. 819 (1990).
We therefore dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
*
United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov.
1994).
2