Filed: Jul. 08, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6435 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MONTE CLAY MOSLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-16) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6435 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MONTE CLAY MOSLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-16) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6435 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MONTE CLAY MOSLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-16) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Monte Clay Mosley, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OF- FICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 his Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion. 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. Mosley, No. CR-95-16 (W.D. Va. Feb. 18, 1998). We deny without prejudice Appellant’s motion to compel and 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
