Filed: May 01, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8151 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN EDWARD JONES, JR., a/k/a Liddy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:98-cr-00048-WMN-1) Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 1, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Edward
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8151 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN EDWARD JONES, JR., a/k/a Liddy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:98-cr-00048-WMN-1) Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 1, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Edward ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8151 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN EDWARD JONES, JR., a/k/a Liddy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:98-cr-00048-WMN-1) Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 1, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Edward Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Edward Jones, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to amend his criminal judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Jones, No. 1:98-cr-00048-WMN-1 (D. Md. Aug. 14, 2008). 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
