Filed: Oct. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6603 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CRYSTAL STARR METZ, a/k/a Crystal Star Metz, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:12-cr-00057-GMG-RWT-2) Submitted: October 14, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6603 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CRYSTAL STARR METZ, a/k/a Crystal Star Metz, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:12-cr-00057-GMG-RWT-2) Submitted: October 14, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6603 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CRYSTAL STARR METZ, a/k/a Crystal Star Metz, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:12-cr-00057-GMG-RWT-2) Submitted: October 14, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Crystal Starr Metz, Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia; Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Crystal Starr Metz appeals the district court’s order denying her post-judgment motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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
