Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. McCormick, 01-7530 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7530 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jan. 29, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7530 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BARRY MCCORMICK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-94-39-HO) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7530 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BARRY MCCORMICK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-94-39-HO) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barry McCormick, Appellant Pro Se. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Barry McCormick appeals from the district court’s order deny- ing McCormick’s motion for modification of his criminal sentence imposed on his guilty plea to conspiracy related to distribution of crack cocaine. 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. United States v. McCormick, No. CR-94-39-HO (E.D.N.C. Filed Aug. 20, 2001; Entered Aug. 21, 2001). 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