Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Spoone, 02-7480 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7480 Visitors: 31
Filed: May 19, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7480 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BOBBY FORRESTER SPOONE, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-3378-6-13BG) Submitted: May 8, 2003 Decided: May 19, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7480 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BOBBY FORRESTER SPOONE, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-3378-6-13BG) Submitted: May 8, 2003 Decided: May 19, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Forrester Spoone, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Bobby Forrester Spoone, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to alter or amend a presentence investigation report and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Spoone, No. CA-00-3378-6-13BG (D.S.C. Aug. 9, 2002; Oct. 18, 2002). We deny Spoone’s motion to consolidate this appeal with case number 02-7827. 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