Filed: Dec. 08, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6799 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CORNELIOUS LEON SPADY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-97-179) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 8, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cornelious Leon Spady,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6799 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CORNELIOUS LEON SPADY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-97-179) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 8, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cornelious Leon Spady, A..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6799 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CORNELIOUS LEON SPADY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-97-179) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 8, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cornelious Leon Spady, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, As- sistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Cornelious Leon Spady appeals the district court’s order de- nying relief on his motion for a reduction of sentence. 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. Spady, No. CR-97-179 (E.D. Va. May 26, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
