Filed: Mar. 25, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7612 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RODERICK F. EASTERLING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-171-A) Submitted: February 11, 1997 Decided: March 25, 1997 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roderick F
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7612 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RODERICK F. EASTERLING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-171-A) Submitted: February 11, 1997 Decided: March 25, 1997 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roderick F...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7612 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RODERICK F. EASTERLING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-171-A) Submitted: February 11, 1997 Decided: March 25, 1997 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roderick F. Easterling, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst, Assistant 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 the district court's order finding his notice of appeal untimely and denying his "Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to Rule 35(a)." 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. Easterling, No. CR-93-171-A (E.D. Va. Sept. 3, 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
