Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Privott, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Andrew Lewis Privott appealed the district court's denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) to correct alleged errors in his presentence investigation report. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The appellate court affirmed the district court's order denying Privott's motion to correct his presentence investigation report. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-06-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-6310

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Andrew Lewis Privott appealed the district court's denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) to correct alleged errors in his presentence investigation report. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The appellate court affirmed the district court's order denying Privott's motion to correct his presentence investigation report. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views2 pages

    United States v. Privott, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Andrew Lewis Privott appealed the district court's denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) to correct alleged errors in his presentence investigation report. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The appellate court affirmed the district court's order denying Privott's motion to correct his presentence investigation report. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 09-6310

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    ANDREW LEWIS PRIVOTT,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
    Judge. (2:02-cr-00090-JBF-FBS-1)

    Submitted:

    May 21, 2009

    Decided:

    June 1, 2009

    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Andrew Lewis Privott, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman,


    Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Andrew
    order

    denying

    Lewis

    his

    Privott

    Fed.

    his

    Civ.

    P.

    the

    60(a)

    presentence

    district
    motion

    courts

    to

    correct

    investigation

    report

    purported

    errors

    (PSR).

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

    error.

    in

    R.

    appeals

    Accordingly, we affirm the district courts order.

    See

    United States v. Privott, No. 2:02-cr-00090-JBF-FBS-1 (E.D. Va.


    Feb. 5, 2009).

    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

    You might also like