Filed: Jun. 26, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8559 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, v. THO TRAN, Respondent - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:01-hc-00833-BR) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 26, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tho Tran, Appellant Pro Se. David
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8559 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, v. THO TRAN, Respondent - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:01-hc-00833-BR) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 26, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tho Tran, Appellant Pro Se. David T..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8559 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, v. THO TRAN, Respondent - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:01-hc-00833-BR) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 26, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tho Tran, Appellant Pro Se. David T. Huband, BUREAU OF PRISONS, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tho Tran appeals the district court’s order denying his motion requesting a furlough under 18 U.S.C. § 4243(h)(1) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Tran, No. 5:01-hc-00833-BR (E.D.N.C. Nov. 19, 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
