The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-7874•United States of America v. George L. Haynesworth
01-7874Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 5, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7874
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GEORGE L. HAYNESWORTH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca B. Smith, District
Judge. (CR-00-65)
Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 5, 2002
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George L. Haynesworth, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
George L. Haynesworth appeals the district court’s order deny-
ing his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.
P. 35(b). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s
order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Haynesworth,
No. CR-00-65 (E.D. Va. Sept. 25, 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.