Filed: Mar. 05, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6837 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARY EDITH SAUNDERS MUSE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Beckley. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, District Judge. (CR-89-21-5-1) Submitted: February 11, 1997 Decided: March 5, 1997 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6837 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARY EDITH SAUNDERS MUSE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Beckley. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, District Judge. (CR-89-21-5-1) Submitted: February 11, 1997 Decided: March 5, 1997 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cur..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6837 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARY EDITH SAUNDERS MUSE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Beckley. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, District Judge. (CR-89-21-5-1) Submitted: February 11, 1997 Decided: March 5, 1997 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Edith Saunders Muse, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Michelle Lecocq, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying her Motion to Rescind Order Amending 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. Muse, No. CR-89-21-5-1 (S.D.W. Va. May 7, 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
