Filed: Apr. 30, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7679 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LENDRO MICHAEL THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00189-JFM-1) Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: April 30, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lendro Michael Thomas, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7679 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LENDRO MICHAEL THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00189-JFM-1) Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: April 30, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lendro Michael Thomas, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7679 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LENDRO MICHAEL THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00189-JFM-1) Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: April 30, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lendro Michael Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lendro Michael Thomas appeals the district court’s order denying Thomas’ Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) motion to correct his sentence, which was imposed in May of 2005. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. United States v. Thomas, No. 1:03-cr-00189-JFM-1 (D. Md. Nov. 30, 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
