Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Leif Lawson, 13-6196 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-6196 Visitors: 13
Filed: Apr. 23, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6196 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LEIF ERIK LAWSON, Defendant - Appellant. No. 13-6319 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LEIF ERIK LAWSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cr-00433-REP-1) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013 Before WILKINSON,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6196 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LEIF ERIK LAWSON, Defendant - Appellant. No. 13-6319 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LEIF ERIK LAWSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cr-00433-REP-1) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leif Erik Lawson, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Leif Erik Lawson appeals the district court’s orders denying his “Motion to Run Time (Sentencing) Concurrently with State Sentencing or Jail Credit” and “Motion for Phone Records for Appeal Case.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Lawson, No. 3:08-cr-00433-REP-1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 29 & Feb. 12, 2013). We deny Lawson’s motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer