United States v. Shrader

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Shrader

553 F. App'x 303

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 28, 2014

DocketNo. 13-7830

StatusPublished

This text of 553 F. App'x 303 (United States v. Shrader) 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. Shrader, 553 F. App'x 303 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Creighton Shrader appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to compel the court to arrest judgment on his convictions for stalking by use of interstate facility and possession of firearms by a convicted felon and denying his motion for reconsideration. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 34. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Shrader, No. 1:09-cr-00270-1, 2013 WL 5566185 (S.D.W.Va. Oct. 8, 2013 & Nov. 1, 2013). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Thomas Creighton Shrader appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to compel the court to arrest judgment on his convictions for stalking by use of interstate facility and possession of firearms by a convicted felon and denying his motion for reconsideration. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 34. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Shrader, No. 1:09-cr-00270-1, 2013 WL 5566185 (S.D.W.Va. Oct. 8, 2013 & Nov. 1, 2013). 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)

553 F. App'x 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-shrader-ca4-2014.