Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Parker, 96-6497 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6497 Visitors: 3
Filed: Oct. 24, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6497 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AFNAN JEROME PARKER, Defendant - Appellant. No. 96-7162 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AFNAN JEROME PARKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-15-C) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 24,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6497 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AFNAN JEROME PARKER, Defendant - Appellant. No. 96-7162 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AFNAN JEROME PARKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-15-C) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 24, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Afnan Jerome Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Urban Baer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: In appeal No. 96-6497, Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35. In appeal No. 96-7162, Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying his motions for a downward departure and to modify his sentence. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Parker, Nos. CR-91-15-C; CR-91-15 (W.D. Va. Feb. 23, and June 26, 1996). 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. AFFIRMED 2 3
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer