Filed: Feb. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6713 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ABEL PARAMA BORROMEO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-89-241) Submitted: February 13, 1996 Decided: February 29, 1996 Before HAMILTON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6713 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ABEL PARAMA BORROMEO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-89-241) Submitted: February 13, 1996 Decided: February 29, 1996 Before HAMILTON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6713 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ABEL PARAMA BORROMEO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-89-241) Submitted: February 13, 1996 Decided: February 29, 1996 Before HAMILTON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Abel Parama Borromeo, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's garnishment order. 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. United States v. Borromeo, No. CR-89-241 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 19, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
