Filed: Jun. 27, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6684 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CAMILLE FORD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-94-163-18-2) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 27, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Camille Ford, A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6684 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CAMILLE FORD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-94-163-18-2) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 27, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Camille Ford, Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6684 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CAMILLE FORD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-94-163-18-2) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 27, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Camille Ford, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Camille Ford appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for modification of sentence. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Ford, No. CR-94-163-18-2 (E.D. Va., filed Apr. 10, 2002; entered Apr. 11, 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
