Filed: Nov. 09, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-4472 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CALVIN A. LONG, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Abingdon. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-16) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 9, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Randall Lowe, TATE,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-4472 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CALVIN A. LONG, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Abingdon. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-16) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 9, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Randall Lowe, TATE, L..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-4472 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CALVIN A. LONG, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Abingdon. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-16) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 9, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Randall Lowe, TATE, LOWE & ROWLETT, P.C., Abington, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Rick A. Mountcastle, Assistant United States Attorney, Abington, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Calvin A. Long appeals from the district court’s order re- voking his supervised release based on two convictions for criminal contempt. We have reviewed the briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Long, No. CR-97-16 (W.D. Va. June 22, 1999). 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