United States v. Van Buren

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Van Buren

669 F. App'x 145

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 4, 2016

DocketNo. 16-6714

StatusPublished

This text of 669 F. App'x 145 (United States v. Van Buren) 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. Van Buren, 669 F. App'x 145 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eric Martin Van Burén appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his [146]*146“motion to have heard new substantive rule per the court’s discretion,” and his motion to correct his presentence report pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. Van Burén also appeals the district court’s subsequent order denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Van Buren, No. 3:00-er-00066-NKM-1, 2016 WL 1266965 (W-D, Va. Mar. 31, 2016; May 20, 2016). 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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eric Martin Van Burén appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his [146]*146“motion to have heard new substantive rule per the court’s discretion,” and his motion to correct his presentence report pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. Van Burén also appeals the district court’s subsequent order denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Van Buren, No. 3:00-er-00066-NKM-1, 2016 WL 1266965 (W-D, Va. Mar. 31, 2016; May 20, 2016). 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)

669 F. App'x 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-van-buren-ca4-2016.