Filed: Jun. 19, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6601 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAYMOND MCARTHUR BEALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-57-F) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 19, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond McArthur Beall
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6601 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAYMOND MCARTHUR BEALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-57-F) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 19, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond McArthur Beall,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6601 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAYMOND MCARTHUR BEALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-57-F) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 19, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond McArthur Beall, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Raymond McArthur Beall appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for review of sentence. 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. Beall, No. CR-95-57-F (E.D.N.C. Mar. 19, 2002). 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
