Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick Emmanuel STEADMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-14
Citations: 133 F. App'x 891
Docket Number: No. 04-7923
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Roderick Emmanuel STEADMAN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 133
Pages: 891–891

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Roderick Emmanuel STEADMAN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7923.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 9, 2005.
Decided: June 14, 2005.
Roderick Emmanuel Steadman, Appellant pro se.
Sonya LaGene Sacks, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Roderick Emmanuel Steadman appeals the district court's order denying his motion to compel the Government to move for a downward departure based on substantial assistance pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b). 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. Steadman, No. CR-00-248 (E.D.Va. Nov. 16, 2004). 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 that Steadman attempts to raise issues in his informal brief that were not properly presented to the district court, we note that he cannot raise them for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993).