Filed: Nov. 25, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7164 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JULIAN ESTER MAE SMITH, a/k/a Pinky, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CR-96-5-2-V-5) Submitted: October 21, 1997 Decided: November 25, 1997 Before HAMILTON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7164 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JULIAN ESTER MAE SMITH, a/k/a Pinky, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CR-96-5-2-V-5) Submitted: October 21, 1997 Decided: November 25, 1997 Before HAMILTON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7164 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JULIAN ESTER MAE SMITH, a/k/a Pinky, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CR-96-5-2-V-5) Submitted: October 21, 1997 Decided: November 25, 1997 Before HAMILTON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Julian Ester Mae Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Thomas Church, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 for lack of jurisdiction Appellant's motion for a reduction in 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. Smith, No. CR-96-5-2-V-5 (W.D.N.C. July 30, 1997). 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
