United States v. Roe

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 15, 2009
• Docket: 08-6475
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6475

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

ANTOINE M. WOOTEN,

Defendant – Appellee,

v.

PRESTON DARNELL ROE,

Movant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cr-00356-RLW)

Submitted: March 30, 2009 Decided: April 15, 2009

Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Horace F. Hunter, HUNTER & LIPTON, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Jonathan H. Hambrick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Preston Darnell Roe appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion to unseal the presentence report of another

defendant in a closed criminal case. We have reviewed the

record included on appeal as well as the parties’ briefs, and we

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See United

States Dep’t of Justice v. Julian, 486 U.S. 1, 12 (1988)

(holding that a third party must make a showing of a “special

need” in order to gain access to another individual’s

presentence report). 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