United States v. Harmon

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Harmon

251 F. App'x 214

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 17, 2007·No. No. 07-6791·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Harmon, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion “nunc pro tunc for review of 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. Harmon, No. 1:00-cr-00153-CMC-1 (D.S.C. May 17, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Harmon, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion “nunc pro tunc for review of 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. Harmon, No. 1:00-cr-00153-CMC-1 (D.S.C. May 17, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

United States v. Harmon, 251 F. App'x 214 (4th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

251 F. App'x 214 (United States v. Harmon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.