Filed: Oct. 02, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7067 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSE ANGEL PEREZ, a/k/a Angel, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-26-F) Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 2, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Ange
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7067 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSE ANGEL PEREZ, a/k/a Angel, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-26-F) Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 2, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Angel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7067 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSE ANGEL PEREZ, a/k/a Angel, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-26-F) Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 2, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Angel Perez, Appellant Pro Se. John Douglas McCullough, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Appellant's motion for a reduction of 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. Perez, No. CR-93-26-F (E.D.N.C. May 23, 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
