United States v. Moss

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Moss

584 F. App'x 69

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 30, 2014

DocketNo. 14-6673

StatusPublished

This text of 584 F. App'x 69 (United States v. Moss) 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. Moss, 584 F. App'x 69 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Todd Lamar Moss appeals the district court’s order denying his “motion to clarify the original intent regarding concurrent sentences” and a subsequent text order denying his motion to amend/correct the previous order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Moss, No. 7:05-cr-00526-HMH-3; 7:98-cr-00610-HMH-1 (D.S.C. Mar. 25, 2014 & [70]*70Apr. 14, 2014). We further deny Moss’s motion to supplement the record. 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Todd Lamar Moss appeals the district court’s order denying his “motion to clarify the original intent regarding concurrent sentences” and a subsequent text order denying his motion to amend/correct the previous order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Moss, No. 7:05-cr-00526-HMH-3; 7:98-cr-00610-HMH-1 (D.S.C. Mar. 25, 2014 & [70]*70Apr. 14, 2014). We further deny Moss’s motion to supplement the record. 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)

584 F. App'x 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-moss-ca4-2014.