Filed: Nov. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6836 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES D. IZAC, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00058-JPB-MJA-1) Submitted: November 15, 2018 Decided: November 20, 2018 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cur
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6836 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES D. IZAC, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00058-JPB-MJA-1) Submitted: November 15, 2018 Decided: November 20, 2018 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6836 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES D. IZAC, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00058-JPB-MJA-1) Submitted: November 15, 2018 Decided: November 20, 2018 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles D. Izac, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles D. Izac appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for resentencing and his renewed motion for resentencing. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Izac, No. 3:02-cr-00058-JPB-MJA-1 (N.D.W. Va. May 22, 2018 & June 6, 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
