Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Saunders, 01-6043 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6043 Visitors: 18
Filed: Mar. 30, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6043 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL VERTOIN SAUNDERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR- 96-204-DKC) Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 30, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Vertoin Saunders, Ap
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6043 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL VERTOIN SAUNDERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR- 96-204-DKC) Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 30, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Vertoin Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, As- sistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Vertoin Saunders appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reduce his sentence due to his health prob- lems, which the district court construed as a motion filed under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion, and Saunders’ informal appellate brief. Because he failed to challenge on appeal the basis for the district court’s ruling, Saunders has not preserved any issue for our review. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. United States v. Saunders, No. CR-96-204-DKC (D. Md. filed Dec. 15, 2000; entered Dec. 18, 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer