Filed: Oct. 26, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6943 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LAZARO TAPIA-SANTANA, a/k/a Lazaro Tapia Martinez, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-62-3) Submitted: October 8, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6943 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LAZARO TAPIA-SANTANA, a/k/a Lazaro Tapia Martinez, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-62-3) Submitted: October 8, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6943 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LAZARO TAPIA-SANTANA, a/k/a Lazaro Tapia Martinez, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-62-3) Submitted: October 8, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lazaro Tapia-Santana, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lazaro Tapia-Santana appeals the district court's order deny- ing his motion to remit payment of his criminal fine. We have re- viewed 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. Tapia-Santana, No. CR-93-62-3 (E.D.N.C. June 22, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2