Filed: Nov. 02, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6883 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICHARD SCOTT SELBY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-16) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 2, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Scott Selby, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6883 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICHARD SCOTT SELBY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-16) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 2, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Scott Selby, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6883 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICHARD SCOTT SELBY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-16) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 2, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Scott Selby, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Richard Scott Selby appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for modification of the restitution requirement of his 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. Selby, No. CR-94-16 (W.D. Va. June 16, 2000). 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
