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)
12-8003•United States of America v. Edward Blaine Mintz, a/k/a Edward Blain Mintz
12-8003Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 6, 2013
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-8003
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
EDWARD BLAINE MINTZ, a/k/a Edward Blain Mintz,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00040-MR-1)
Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: May 6, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward Blaine Mintz, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Edward Blaine Mintz appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion to appoint new counsel and for an extension
of time to file a motion to reconsider the denial of his motion
to reduce sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. United States v. Mintz, No. 1:08-cr-
00040-MR-1 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 7, 2012). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.