Filed: Jul. 14, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6119 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SEBASTIAN GOMEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-96-806) Submitted: June 9, 2004 Decided: July 14, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sebastian Gomez, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6119 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SEBASTIAN GOMEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-96-806) Submitted: June 9, 2004 Decided: July 14, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sebastian Gomez, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall P..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6119 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SEBASTIAN GOMEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-96-806) Submitted: June 9, 2004 Decided: July 14, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sebastian Gomez, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Sebastian Gomez appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for clarification and 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. Gomez, No. CR-96-806 (D.S.C. filed Dec. 17, 2003 & entered Dec. 18, 2003). 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 -
