Filed: Nov. 22, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6699 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEREK MARQUIS FLEMING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:91-cr-00179-NCT-1) Submitted: November 17, 2011 Decided: November 22, 2011 Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek M
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6699 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEREK MARQUIS FLEMING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:91-cr-00179-NCT-1) Submitted: November 17, 2011 Decided: November 22, 2011 Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek Ma..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6699 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEREK MARQUIS FLEMING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:91-cr-00179-NCT-1) Submitted: November 17, 2011 Decided: November 22, 2011 Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek Marquis Fleming, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Derek Marquis Fleming appeals the district court’s order denying Fleming’s motion to reconsider the order denying Fleming’s motion to correct a clerical error in its judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Fleming, No. 2:91-cr-00179-NCT-1 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 28, 2011). 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
