United States v. Richardson

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Richardson

30 F. App'x 114

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 27, 2002

Docket01-8128

StatusUnpublished

This text of 30 F. App'x 114 (United States v. Richardson) 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. Richardson, 30 F. App'x 114 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Timmy Richardson appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (1994) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Richardson, No. CR-98-290-3 (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 12, 2001; entered Dec. 13, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court *115 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.

Timmy Richardson appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (1994) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Richardson, No. CR-98-290-3 (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 12, 2001; entered Dec. 13, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court *115 and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 F. App'x 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-richardson-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack