Filed: Mar. 30, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6163 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KENNETH M. MONTGOMERY, JR., a/k/a Richard E. Main, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-98-289) Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 30, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ken
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6163 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KENNETH M. MONTGOMERY, JR., a/k/a Richard E. Main, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-98-289) Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 30, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenn..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6163 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KENNETH M. MONTGOMERY, JR., a/k/a Richard E. Main, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-98-289) Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 30, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth M. Montgomery, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. David T. Maguire, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kenneth M. Montgomery, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. 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. Montgomery, No. CR-98-289 (E.D. Va. Jan. 11, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
