Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Harold SAUNDERS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-29
Citations: 70 F. App'x 133
Docket Number: Nos. 02-7769, 03-6813
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Harold SAUNDERS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 70
Pages: 133–133

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Harold SAUNDERS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 02-7769, 03-6813.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2003.
Decided July 29, 2003.
Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Marie Hoefling, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., appeals the district court's orders denying his motion to supplement a 1994 motion and denying his motions for reconsideration. 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. Saunders, No. CR-94-17 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 2002; May 1, 2003; May 30, 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.
Although Saunders did not file a notice of appeal from the district court's order denying his second motion for reconsideration, we have jurisdiction to review the order because his timely filed informal brief is the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal. Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 245, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992).