Filed: Oct. 13, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6618 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANNY LEE FLECK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:04-cr-00491-AMD-1) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 13, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Lee Fleck, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6618 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANNY LEE FLECK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:04-cr-00491-AMD-1) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 13, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Lee Fleck, Appellant Pro Se. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6618 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANNY LEE FLECK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:04-cr-00491-AMD-1) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 13, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Lee Fleck, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Mason Gruber, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Danny Lee Fleck appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Fleck, No. 1:04-cr-00491-AMD-1 (D. Md. Feb. 18 & Mar. 23, 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
