Filed: Mar. 08, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7792 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OMAR YUSUF DESANGES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CR-95-46) Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 8, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Omar Yusuf Desanges, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7792 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OMAR YUSUF DESANGES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CR-95-46) Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 8, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Omar Yusuf Desanges, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7792
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
OMAR YUSUF DESANGES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (CR-95-46)
Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 8, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Omar Yusuf Desanges, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Omar Yusuf Desanges (“Desanges”) filed a notice of appeal
seeking a review of his 1996 sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742
(2000). However, this statute is unavailable to Desanges, whose
conviction we previously affirmed on direct appeal. See United
States v. Desanges, No. 96-4561,
1998 WL 27149 (4th Cir. Jan. 27,
1998) (unpublished). Although § 3742 provides that a defendant may
directly appeal his sentence, the statute provides no mechanism
through which he or she may reopen a direct appeal. Accordingly,
we dismiss the appeal. 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 -