Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, Antoine M. Wooten, Defendant-Appellee, v. Preston Darnell ROE, Movant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-15
Citations: 322 F. App'x 290
Docket Number: No. 08-6475
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, Antoine M. Wooten, Defendant—Appellee, v. Preston Darnell ROE, Movant—Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 322
Pages: 290–291

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, Antoine M. Wooten, Defendant—Appellee, v. Preston Darnell ROE, Movant—Appellant.
No. 08-6475.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2009.
Decided: April 15, 2009.
Horace F. Hunter, Hunter & Lipton, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Jonathan H. Hambrick, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Preston Darnell Roe appeals the district court's order denying his motion to unseal the presentence report of another defendant in a closed criminal case. We have reviewed the record included on appeal as well as the parties' briefs, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See United States Dep't of Justice v. Julian, 486 U.S. 1, 12, 108 S.Ct. 1606, 100 L.Ed.2d 1 (1988) (holding that a third party must make a showing of a "special need" in order to gain access to another individual's presentence report). 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.