Filed: Aug. 02, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6457 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. BERNARD MORRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00055-JPB-DJJ-1) Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 2, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Morr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6457 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. BERNARD MORRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00055-JPB-DJJ-1) Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 2, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Morri..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6457 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. BERNARD MORRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00055-JPB-DJJ-1) Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 2, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Morris, Appellant Pro Se. David J. Perri, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bernard Morris appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to modify the terms of his supervised release. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Morris, No. 3:06-cr-00055-JPB-DJJ-1 (N.D. W. Va. Feb. 17, 2010). 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
