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)
08-8445•United States of America v. Michael R. Ray
08-8445Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 13, 2009
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8445
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL R. RAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:02-cr-00687-TLW-1)
Submitted: April 29, 2009 Decided: May 13, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael R. Ray, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Michael R. Ray appeals the district court’s orders
denying his motions to amend his restitution order and for
reconsideration of the district court’s denial of his motion to
amend his restitution order. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s orders. United States v. Ray, No. 4:02-cr-00687-TLW-1
(D.S.C. Apr. 22, 2008; Nov. 7, 2008). 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.