Filed: Nov. 25, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7792 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RANDOLF MOORE, a/k/a Randy, a/k/a Booney, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:95-cr-00041-H-7) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cur
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7792 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RANDOLF MOORE, a/k/a Randy, a/k/a Booney, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:95-cr-00041-H-7) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7792 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RANDOLF MOORE, a/k/a Randy, a/k/a Booney, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:95-cr-00041-H-7) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randolf Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Randolf Moore appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the district court’s previous order denying his motion to supplement. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Moore, No. 4:95-cr-00041-H-7 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 6, 2009). We deny Moore’s motion for transcript at government expense, and 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
