Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Craig O. COPLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-30
Citations: 79 F. App'x 599
Docket Number: No. 03-7017
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Craig O. COPLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 79
Pages: 599–600

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Craig O. COPLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-7017.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 23, 2003.
Decided Oct. 30, 2003.
Craig 0. Copley, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Craig 0. Copley appeals the district court's orders denying his pro se motions for discharge and reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Copley's motions were filed within 180 days of the district court's revocation of his conditional release and were, thus, premature. See 18 U.S.C. § 4247(d) (2000). In addition, motions for discharge may not be made pro se and, instead, must be filed by either counsel or a legal guardian. Id. Therefore, we affirm. 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.