Filed: Mar. 07, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-4319 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID P. SHURLAND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-98-392) Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: March 7, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sherri A. Thaxton, SHE
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-4319 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID P. SHURLAND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-98-392) Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: March 7, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sherri A. Thaxton, SHER..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-4319
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID P. SHURLAND,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-98-392)
Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: March 7, 2000
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sherri A. Thaxton, SHERRI A. THAXTON, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Helen Fahey, United States Attorney, Sara E. Flannery,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David P. Shurland appeals from a one-day sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to entering a military installation after
having been removed, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1382 (West 1984 & Supp. 1999 ).
We have reviewed the evidence and find that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in denying Shurland’s Fed. R. Crim. P.
32(d) motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v.
Moore,
931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm
his conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument be-
cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2