Filed: Jun. 06, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6356 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DOUGLAS HAYTH BREWBAKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-00-77-7) Submitted: May 28, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Hayth Brewbaker
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6356 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DOUGLAS HAYTH BREWBAKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-00-77-7) Submitted: May 28, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Hayth Brewbaker,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6356
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DOUGLAS HAYTH BREWBAKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (CR-00-77-7)
Submitted: May 28, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002
Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Douglas Hayth Brewbaker, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Douglas Hayth Brewbaker appeals the district court’s order
denying his request to stop the Bureau of Prisons from collecting
his court-ordered restitution, which was agreed to in his plea
agreement. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See
United States v. Brown,
232 F.3d 399, 403-06 (4th Cir. 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