Filed: Jun. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6390 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMUEL ROBERT QUEEN, JR., a/k/a Fat Sammy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:93-cr-00369-JFM-1) Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6390 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMUEL ROBERT QUEEN, JR., a/k/a Fat Sammy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:93-cr-00369-JFM-1) Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samue..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6390 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMUEL ROBERT QUEEN, JR., a/k/a Fat Sammy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:93-cr-00369-JFM-1) Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Robert Queen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Biran, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Samuel Robert Queen, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to correct clerical mistakes. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Queen, No. 1:93-cr-00369-JFM-1 (D. Md. Feb. 17, 2012). 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
