Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04153/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04153-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul E. Daniels
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4153

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PAUL E. DANIELS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (1:06-cr-00489-LMB)

Submitted: September 7, 2007 Decided: January 23, 2008

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Todd M. Richman,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Sapna Mirchandani, Research and

Writing Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck

Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Olivia Hussey, Special Assistant

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4153 Doc: 38 Filed: 01/23/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Paul Daniels was stopped by military police on Fuller

Road as he attempted to drive past Gate No. 1 into the Marine Corps

Base at Quantico, Virginia. A magistrate judge found Daniels

operated a vehicle on a suspended license, see 18 U.S.C. § 13

(2000), assimilating Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-301 (Michie 2004), and

sentenced Daniels to six months’ supervised probation. Daniels

appealed to the district court pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.

58(g)(2), and the district court affirmed. Daniels appealed to

this court, contending the district court erroneously found he was

driving on a Virginia highway as defined by Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-

100 (Michie Supp. 2007). Finding no error, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court in its thorough opinion. See

United States v. Daniels, No. 1:06-cr-00489-LMB (E.D. Va. Jan. 29,

2007). We deny Daniels’ motion for leave to file an attachment to

the Joint Appendix. 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

Appeal: 07-4153 Doc: 38 Filed: 01/23/2008 Pg: 2 of 2