Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Varden M. GRANDISON, a/k/a Verden M. Grandison, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-05
Citations: 61 F. App'x 911
Docket Number: No. 03-6365
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Varden M. GRANDISON, a/k/a Verden M. Grandison, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 61
Pages: 911–911

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Varden M. GRANDISON, a/k/a Verden M. Grandison, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6365.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 24, 2003.
Decided May 5, 2003.
Varden M. Grandison, Appellant Pro Se. Eric J. McDonald, Office of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Varden M. Grandison appeals the district court's order denying his February 2003 motion for reconsideration of a sentence imposed in March 2002. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Grandison, No. CR-01-126 (E.D.Va. Feb. 18, 2003). 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.
To the extent Grandison's informal brief raises additional claims not directly related to the denial of his motion for reconsideration, this court is without jurisdiction to consider them. See Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (holding that period for filing notice of appal is "mandatory and jurisdictional").