Filed: Dec. 21, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7468 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ERIC KAVE CONKLIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (1:03-cr-00096-jpj) Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 21, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Kave Conklin, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7468 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ERIC KAVE CONKLIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (1:03-cr-00096-jpj) Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 21, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Kave Conklin, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7468 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ERIC KAVE CONKLIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (1:03-cr-00096-jpj) Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 21, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Kave Conklin, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis H. Lee, COMMONWEALTH’S ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Tazewell, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eric Kave Conklin appeals the district court’s order denying his “Motion in Request of a Nunc Pro Tunc Order.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Conklin, No. 1:03-cr-00096-jpj (W.D. Va. Sept. 20, 2007). 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 -
