Filed: Mar. 28, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7936 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARIO SALAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:98-cr-00166-JRS-1) Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 28, 2014 Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario Salas, Appellant Pro Se. Brian R.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7936 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARIO SALAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:98-cr-00166-JRS-1) Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 28, 2014 Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario Salas, Appellant Pro Se. Brian R. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7936 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARIO SALAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:98-cr-00166-JRS-1) Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 28, 2014 Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario Salas, Appellant Pro Se. Brian R. Hood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mario Salas appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 motion to correct a clerical error in his criminal judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Salas, No. 3:98-cr- 00166-JRS-1 (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 2013). 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
