Filed: Jul. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6234 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANA MORRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:16-cr-00004-AWA-RJK-1) Submitted: July 19, 2018 Decided: July 23, 2018 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dana Morris, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6234 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANA MORRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:16-cr-00004-AWA-RJK-1) Submitted: July 19, 2018 Decided: July 23, 2018 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dana Morris, Appellant Pro S..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6234 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANA MORRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:16-cr-00004-AWA-RJK-1) Submitted: July 19, 2018 Decided: July 23, 2018 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dana Morris, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dana Morris appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to reconsider a prior order denying Morris’s motion to amend the restitution order that was entered as part of her criminal sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Morris, No. 4:16-cr-00004-AWA-RJK-1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 21, 2018). 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
