Filed: Aug. 17, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6568 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DANAH D. DIGGS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CR-01-02) Submitted: July 28, 2004 Decided: August 17, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danah D. Diggs, Appellant Pro Se. Robe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6568 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DANAH D. DIGGS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CR-01-02) Submitted: July 28, 2004 Decided: August 17, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danah D. Diggs, Appellant Pro Se. Rober..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6568
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DANAH D. DIGGS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge.
(CR-01-02)
Submitted: July 28, 2004 Decided: August 17, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danah D. Diggs, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Lucas Hobbs, Assistant
United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Danah D. Diggs appeals the district court’s orders
denying her motion for downward departure and motion to correct
sentence. We dismiss the appeal as duplicative because this court
disposed of prior appeals from these same orders. See United
States v. Diggs, No. 04-6193(L),
2004 WL 542478 (4th Cir. Mar. 19,
2004) (unpublished). 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.
DISMISSED
- 2 -