United States v. Mintz

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Mintz

520 F. App'x 225

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 6, 2013

DocketNo. 12-8003

StatusPublished

This text of 520 F. App'x 225 (United States v. Mintz) 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. Mintz, 520 F. App'x 225 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Edward Blaine Mintz appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to appoint new counsel and for an extension of time to file a motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to reduce 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. Mintz, No. 1:08-cr-00040-MR-l (W.D.N.C. Nov. 7, 2012). 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.

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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Edward Blaine Mintz appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to appoint new counsel and for an extension of time to file a motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to reduce 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. Mintz, No. 1:08-cr-00040-MR-l (W.D.N.C. Nov. 7, 2012). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

520 F. App'x 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mintz-ca4-2013.