Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul E. DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-23
Citations: 267 F. App'x 228
Docket Number: No. 07-4153
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul E. DANIELS, DefendantAppellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 267
Pages: 228–228

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul E. DANIELS, DefendantAppellant.
No. 07-4153.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 7, 2007.
Decided: Jan. 23, 2008.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Todd M. Richman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Sapna Mirchandani, Research and Writing Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Olivia Hussey, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Paul Daniels was stopped by military police on Fuller Road as he attempted to drive past Gate No. 1 into the Marine Corps Base at Quantico, Virginia. A magistrate judge found Daniels operated a vehicle on a suspended license, see 18 U.S.C. § 13 (2000), assimilating Va.Code Ann. § 46.2-301 (Michie 2004), and sentenced Daniels to six months' supervised probation. Daniels appealed to the district court pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 58(g)(2), and the district court affirmed. Daniels appealed to this court, contending the district court erroneously found he was driving on a Virginia highway as defined by Va.Code Ann. § 46.2-100 (Michie Supp. 2007). Finding no error, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough opinion. See United States v. Daniels, 471 F.Supp.2d 634 (E.D.Va.2007). We deny Daniels' motion for leave to file an attachment to the Joint Appendix. 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.