Court Opinion

ID: 9376152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-01 21:00:38.417949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:04.628829
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4732      Doc: 10         Filed: 02/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4732

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MICHAEL RAFAEL BERKLEY,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:22-cr-00101-MHL-1)

        Submitted: February 10, 2023                                 Decided: February 28, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Michael Rafael Berkley, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Arthur Garnett, Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4732         Doc: 10      Filed: 02/28/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Michael Rafael Berkley appeals the district court’s order affirming the magistrate

        judge’s order directing that Berkley be detained pending resolution of the criminal charges

        against him. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See United

        States v. Clark, 865 F.2d 1433, 1437 (4th Cir. 1989) (citing standard of review).

        Accordingly, we affirm. United States v. Berkley, No. 3:22-cr-00101-MHL-1 (E.D. Va.

        Dec. 9, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

        adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                      AFFIRMED

               *
                We have jurisdiction to review the district court’s order pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
        § 1291. See 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c).

                                                    2