Filed: Sep. 16, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6970 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HENRY MCKINLEY SCOTT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-00-98) Submitted: September 9, 2004 Decided: September 16, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry McKinl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6970 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HENRY MCKINLEY SCOTT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-00-98) Submitted: September 9, 2004 Decided: September 16, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry McKinle..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6970 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HENRY MCKINLEY SCOTT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-00-98) Submitted: September 9, 2004 Decided: September 16, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry McKinley Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Henry McKinley Scott appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to modify his sentence. 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. Scott, No. CR-00-98 (E.D. Va. Apr. 16, 2004). 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 -
