Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Goins, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Timmy Goins appealed a magistrate judge's order denying his motion to modify his sentence to allow his sentences to run concurrently rather than consecutively. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and the orders from the magistrate judge and district court affirming the magistrate judge's order. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed the lower courts' rulings, denying Goins' motion to modify his sentence. The Fourth Circuit decided oral arguments were not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-06-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-4075

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Timmy Goins appealed a magistrate judge's order denying his motion to modify his sentence to allow his sentences to run concurrently rather than consecutively. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and the orders from the magistrate judge and district court affirming the magistrate judge's order. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed the lower courts' rulings, denying Goins' motion to modify his sentence. The Fourth Circuit decided oral arguments were not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Goins, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Timmy Goins appealed a magistrate judge's order denying his motion to modify his sentence to allow his sentences to run concurrently rather than consecutively. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and the orders from the magistrate judge and district court affirming the magistrate judge's order. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed the lower courts' rulings, denying Goins' motion to modify his sentence. The Fourth Circuit decided oral arguments were not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately explained 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. 02-4075

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    TIMMY GOINS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge;
    Pamela Meade Sargent, Magistrate Judge. (M-01-14-2, M-01-15-2, M01-16-2, M-01-43-2, M-01-44-2, CR-02-5)

    Submitted:

    June 13, 2002

    Decided:

    June 18, 2002

    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Matthew W. Greene, SMITH & GREENE, P.L.L.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for
    Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, S. Randall
    Ramseyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Timmy Goins appeals the magistrate judges order denying his
    motion for modification of his sentence to permit his sentences to
    run concurrently.
    judges

    order,

    We have reviewed the record, the magistrate

    and

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    magistrate judge, and find no reversible error.

    affirming

    the

    Accordingly, we

    affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge and the district


    court. See United States v. Goins, Nos. M-01-14-2; M-01-15-2; M-0116-2; M-01-43-2; M-01-44-2; CR-02-5 (W.D. Va. Dec. 18 & 26, 2001).
    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