Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul A. LEE, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul A. Lee, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-30
Citations: 386 F. App'x 453
Docket Number: Nos. 09-8219, 10-6031
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul A. LEE, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul A. Lee, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 386
Pages: 453–454

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul A. LEE, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul A. Lee, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 09-8219, 10-6031.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 15, 2010.
Decided: June 30, 2010.
Paul A. Lee, Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before KING and DUNCAN, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
In these consolidated appeals, Paul A. Lee appeals the district court's orders denying his: petition for reconsideration to unseal pre-indictment First Amendment issues; motion to file second supplement; motion to re-file[ ] defendant's original sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006); motion for Rule 55(a) default judgment; motion for an order granting his § 3582(c)(2) motion; amended motion for Rule 55(a) default judgment; motion to re-file a second motion for reconsideration; and motion to re-file his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Lee, No. 5:94-cr-00096-FPS-JES-1 (N.D.W.Va. Dec. 8, 9 & 30, 2009). 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.