Filed: Nov. 20, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7149 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY ALLEN QUINN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:01-cr-00089) Submitted: November 6, 2006 Decided: November 20, 2006 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7149 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY ALLEN QUINN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:01-cr-00089) Submitted: November 6, 2006 Decided: November 20, 2006 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7149 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY ALLEN QUINN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:01-cr-00089) Submitted: November 6, 2006 Decided: November 20, 2006 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Allen Quinn, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Anthony Allen Quinn appeals a district court order denying his motion for sentence reduction pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). We have reviewed the record and the district court opinion and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See United States v. Quinn, No. 1:01-cr-00089 (E.D. Va. June 9, 2006). 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 -
