Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent Eugene LINEBERGER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-27
Citations: 88 F. App'x 655
Docket Number: No. 03-4531
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Vincent Eugene LINEBERGER, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 655–655

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Vincent Eugene LINEBERGER, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-4531.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 11, 2004.
Decided Feb. 27, 2004.
Vincent Eugene Lineberger, Appellant pro se. Robert James Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney; Holly Anne Pierson, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In a prior appeal by Vincent Eugene Lineberger, we vacated his criminal judgment and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing for the limited purpose of stating a definite date by which Lineberger's sentence was to begin. See United States v. Golden, 795 F.2d 19, 21 (3d Cir.1986). On remand, the district court amended the judgment to state that Lineberger was to "begin his sentence on October 23, 1998." The court also corrected a clerical mistake in the original judgment order and changed the order in which the counts were listed in several sections of the judgment. Lineberger now appeals from the amended judgment and from the district court's order denying his motion to vacate the amended judgment. Our review of the record and the district court's orders has disclosed no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Lineberger has raised numerous issues on appeal. However, because these issues are outside the scope of the remand, we decline to address them. 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
Although Lineberger completed the service of his term of imprisonment, this appeal is not moot because he is still subject to a three-year term of supervised release.