Case ID: f-appx_669/html/0145-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Martin Van BUREN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-6714
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: September 29, 2016
    Decided: October 4, 2016
    Eric Martin Van Burén, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eric Martin Van Burén appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his “motion to have heard new substantive rule per the court’s discretion,” and his motion to correct his presentence report pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. Van Burén also appeals the district court’s subsequent order denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Van Buren, No. 3:00-er-00066-NKM-1, 2016 WL 1266965 (W-D, Va. Mar. 31, 2016; May 20, 2016). 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