United States v. Loiseau

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Loiseau

589 F. App'x 118

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 23, 2014

DocketNo. 14-7155

StatusPublished

This text of 589 F. App'x 118 (United States v. Loiseau) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Loiseau, 589 F. App'x 118 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER , CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Angelo Loiseau, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to remove or seal the federal detainer that was lodged against Loiseau after he pleaded guilty to violating the terms of his federal supervised release and was sentenced to forty-six months’ imprisonment, to be served consecutive to Loiseau’s Virginia sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Loi-seau, No. 3:97-cr-00344-REP-l (E.D.Va. July 21, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argumént 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Affirmed by unpublished PER , CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Michael Angelo Loiseau, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to remove or seal the federal detainer that was lodged against Loiseau after he pleaded guilty to violating the terms of his federal supervised release and was sentenced to forty-six months’ imprisonment, to be served consecutive to Loiseau’s Virginia sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Loi-seau, No. 3:97-cr-00344-REP-l (E.D.Va. July 21, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argumént would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

589 F. App'x 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-loiseau-ca4-2014.