Filed: Oct. 28, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7145 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONNIE EARL MELTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-91-525-A) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 28, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie Earl Melton, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7145 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONNIE EARL MELTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-91-525-A) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 28, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie Earl Melton, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7145 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONNIE EARL MELTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-91-525-A) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 28, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie Earl Melton, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Smythers, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Thomas More Hollenhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Vir- ginia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Appel- lant’s motion for resentencing. 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. Melton, No. CR-91-525-A (E.D. Va. June 3, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
