Filed: Jul. 01, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6139 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EUNICE ARNETTA HARRIS SPARKS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-92-179) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eunice Arnetta
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6139 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EUNICE ARNETTA HARRIS SPARKS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-92-179) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eunice Arnetta ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6139 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EUNICE ARNETTA HARRIS SPARKS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-92-179) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eunice Arnetta Harris Sparks, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Patrick Mebane, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Caro- lina, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 motion to modify her sentence so that she will be transferred to the institution of her choice. 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. Sparks, No. CR-92-179 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 5, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
