Case ID: f-appx_79/html/0599-02.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. Craig O. COPLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-7017.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 23, 2003.
    Decided Oct. 30, 2003.
    
      Craig 0. Copley, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Craig 0. Copley appeals the district court’s orders denying his pro se motions for discharge and reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Copley’s motions were filed within 180 days of the district court’s revocation of his conditional release and were, thus, premature. See 18 U.S.C. § 4247(d) (2000). In addition, motions for discharge may not be made pro se and, instead, must be filed by either counsel or a legal guardian. Id. Therefore, we affirm. 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.