Case ID: f-appx_261/html/0451-01.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. Christopher Lee THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-7642.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 15, 2006.
    Decided: Nov. 27, 2006.
    Christopher Lee Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Edward Rich, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Christopher Lee Thomas appeals district court orders denying his Rule 60(b) motion and his Rule 59 motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See United States v. Thomas, No. 1:99-cr-00477-CMH (E.D. Va. filed June 13, 2006), and entered June 14, 2006; Aug. 18, 2006. We deny Thomas’ motion for a stay. 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.