Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. De Los Santos-Mora, 99-6518 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6518 Visitors: 36
Filed: Jun. 25, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6518 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICARDO ANTONIO DE LOS SANTOS-MORA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-96-49) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 25, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6518 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICARDO ANTONIO DE LOS SANTOS-MORA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-96-49) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 25, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricardo Antonio De Los Santos-Mora, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ricardo Antonio De Los Santos-Mora appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the dis- trict court’s order reducing his sentence pursuant to the Govern- ment’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) 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. See United States v. De Los Santos-Mora, No. CR-96-49 (E.D. Va. Mar. 26, 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer