Filed: Nov. 15, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7272 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANDRE GERARD LEWIS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 00-7491 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANDRE GERARD LEWIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-99-314) Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000 Before WILKINS,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7272 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANDRE GERARD LEWIS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 00-7491 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANDRE GERARD LEWIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-99-314) Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, W..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7272 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANDRE GERARD LEWIS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 00-7491 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANDRE GERARD LEWIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-99-314) Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andre Gerard Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. John Staige Davis, V, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Andre Gerard Lewis appeals the district court’s orders deny- ing his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and denying his motion for arraignment transcripts. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Ac- cordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Lewis, No. CR-99-314 (E.D. Va. Aug. 30, 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