Filed: Apr. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7895 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GRACIE GARNER JENKINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CR-94-20, CA-95-20-1-2-BO) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7895 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GRACIE GARNER JENKINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CR-94-20, CA-95-20-1-2-BO) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7895 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GRACIE GARNER JENKINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CR-94-20, CA-95-20-1-2-BO) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gracie Garner Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Jane H. Jolly, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order denying her motions to receive credit for time served on bond and to recalcu- late her sentence. 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. Jenkins, Nos. CR-94-20; CA-95-20-1-2-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 18, 1995). 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
