Filed: May 13, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6089 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEFFREY TARRATS, a/k/a Skip, a/k/a Ozzy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:04-cr-00016-RAJ-JEB-7) Submitted: May 4, 2016 Decided: May 13, 2016 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6089 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEFFREY TARRATS, a/k/a Skip, a/k/a Ozzy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:04-cr-00016-RAJ-JEB-7) Submitted: May 4, 2016 Decided: May 13, 2016 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6089
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY TARRATS, a/k/a Skip, a/k/a Ozzy,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:04-cr-00016-RAJ-JEB-7)
Submitted: May 4, 2016 Decided: May 13, 2016
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Tarrats, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Tarrats appeals the district court’s order denying
his Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 motion. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s order. See United States v. Tarrats, No. 2:04-cr-00016-
RAJ-JEB-7 (E.D. Va. Jan. 7, 2016; June 18, 2015); see also
United States v. Mann,
709 F.3d 301, 304-05 (4th Cir. 2013)
(according deference to a district court’s interpretation of its
own judgment). 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
2