United States v. Haynes

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Haynes

452 F. App'x 406

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 November 3, 2011·No. No. 11-6114·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lino H. Haynes appeals the district court’s order denying his “motion to vacate judgment” pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), which Haynes attempted to file in his criminal case. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Haynes, No. 2:90-cr-00105-HCM-TEM-1 (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 19 & entered Nov. 22, 2010). 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lino H. Haynes appeals the district court’s order denying his “motion to vacate judgment” pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), which Haynes attempted to file in his criminal case. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Haynes, No. 2:90-cr-00105-HCM-TEM-1 (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 19 & entered Nov. 22, 2010). 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, 452 F. App'x 406 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

452 F. App'x 406 (United States v. Haynes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.