United States v. Haynes

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Haynes

284 F. App'x 23

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Haynes. Read the opinion of the Court — 354 F. App'x 763 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided July 14, 2008·No. 07-7129·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Lino H. Haynes appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a) motion and denying reconsideration of its May 11, 2004 order granting in part and denying in part his Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a) motion. 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. Haynes, No. 2:90-cr-00105-HCM (E.D. Va. filed July 9, 2007; entered July 12, 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:

Lino H. Haynes appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a) motion and denying reconsideration of its May 11, 2004 order granting in part and denying in part his Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a) motion. 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. Haynes, No. 2:90-cr-00105-HCM (E.D. Va. filed July 9, 2007; entered July 12, 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. Haynes, 284 F. App'x 23 (4th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

284 F. App'x 23 (United States v. Haynes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.