Filed: Apr. 26, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6273 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WALTER LOUIS INGRAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior District Judge. (1:92-cr-00116-HNM-1) Submitted: April 20, 2006 Decided: April 26, 2006 Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Louis Ingram, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6273 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WALTER LOUIS INGRAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior District Judge. (1:92-cr-00116-HNM-1) Submitted: April 20, 2006 Decided: April 26, 2006 Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Louis Ingram, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6273 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WALTER LOUIS INGRAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior District Judge. (1:92-cr-00116-HNM-1) Submitted: April 20, 2006 Decided: April 26, 2006 Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Louis Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Walter Louis Ingram appeals a district court’s order denying his motion for resentencing and to correct erroneous information in the presentence investigation report. The district court was without jurisdiction to do either. Accordingly, we affirm. 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 -
