Filed: Aug. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6470 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MONTE DECARLOS WINSTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:99-cr-00030-REP-1) Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Monte
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6470 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MONTE DECARLOS WINSTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:99-cr-00030-REP-1) Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Monte ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6470 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MONTE DECARLOS WINSTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:99-cr-00030-REP-1) Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Monte Decarlos Winston, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, Stephen David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Monte Decarlos Winston appeals the district court’s order denying Winston’s postjudgment motion asking the court to audit his federal sentencing obligation. 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. Winston, No. 3:99-cr-00030-REP-1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 21, 2017). 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
