Case ID: f-appx_234/html/0063-02.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. Russell Lee EBERSOLE, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Russell Lee Ebersole, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 06-7405, 07-6197.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 24, 2007.
    Decided: July 26, 2007.
    Russell Lee Ebersole, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Higgins McQuillan, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Following his convictions on twenty-five counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1343 (West Supp.2007), and two counts of presenting false claims to the government, in contravention of 18 U.S.C. § 287 (2000), and his unsuccessful appeal of his convictions, Russell Lee Ebersole filed post-judgment motions which are the subject of these consolidated appeals. In Appeal No. 07-6197, Ebersole challenges the district court’s orders denying his motion for a new trial and related motions, and denying his motion for 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. Ebersole, No. 1:03-cr-00112-LMB (E.D. Va. July 25, 2006 & Jan. 26, 2007). In Appeal No. 06-7405, Ebersole appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for immediate release. By failing to raise this claim in his informal brief, Ebersole has waived this issue. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Ebersole’s motion to stay the subject appeals pending his recovery from surgery is denied. We also deny as moot his motion for a stay or extension of time to file his informal brief in Appeal No. 07-6197. 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.