United States v. Saunders

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7769

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EDWARD HAROLD SAUNDERS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 03-6813

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-17)

Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 29, 2003 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Marie Hoefling, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

2 PER CURIAM:

Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., appeals the district court’s

orders denying his motion to supplement a 1994 motion and denying

his motions for reconsideration.* We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. See United States v. Saunders, No.

CR-94-17 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 2002; May 1, 2003; May 30, 2003). 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

* Although Saunders did not file a notice of appeal from the district court’s order denying his second motion for reconsideration, we have jurisdiction to review the order because his timely filed informal brief is the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal. Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 245 (1992).