Court Opinion

ID: 1001588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:57:58.444813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:19.723028
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 00-6183

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

MICHAEL RAY SHIFFLETT,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Charlottesville.    James H. Michael, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (CR-91-33)

Submitted:   May 11, 2000                     Decided:   May 18, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Ray Shifflett, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Martin Sorenson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Jennie M. Waering, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Michael Ray Shifflett appeals the district court’s order

denying his “motion for reconsideration of motion for subpoena of

stenotype notes.”   We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error.   Accordingly, we af-

firm on the reasoning of the district court.    See United States v.

Shifflett, No. CR-91-33 (W.D. Va. Dec. 22, 1999). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                           AFFIRMED

                                  2