Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
U.S. v. PONZINI, 278 Fed.Appx. 242 (4th Cir. 2008)
278 Fed.Appx. 242
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2008-05-15
- Topic
- general
U.S. v. PONZINI, 278 Fed.Appx. 242 (4th Cir. 2008) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert LouisPONZINI, Defendant-Appellant. No. 08-6075.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: April 24, 2008. Decided: May 15, 2008. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed U.S. v. PONZINI, 278 Fed.Appx. 242 (4th Cir. 2008). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
U.S. v. PONZINI,278 Fed.Appx. 242(4th Cir. 2008)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Louis
PONZINI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-6075.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 24, 2008.
Decided: May 15, 2008.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:02-cr-00423-JRS).
Robert Louis Ponzini, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Ronald Hood, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Robert Louis Ponzini appeals the district court's order granting in part and denying in part Ponzini's motion to modify conditions of supervised release. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.United States v.Ponzini, No. 3:02-cr-00423-JRS (E.D.Va. Dec. 4, 2007). 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.
- [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩