Filed: Aug. 21, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6478 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LONNIE LOWE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-92-392-A) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6478 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LONNIE LOWE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-92-392-A) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6478 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LONNIE LOWE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-92-392-A) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lonnie Lowe, Appellant Pro Se. Cathleen Ann Tutty, Special Assis- tant United States Attorney, Alexandria, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and "Motion to Consolidate/ Aggregregate Sentence." We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Lowe, No. CR-92-392-A (E.D. Va. Jan. 19, 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
