Court Opinion

ID: 9911808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 21:00:36.853297+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:44.130306
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6805      Doc: 8        Filed: 12/19/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6805

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        TALEEK SHERROD SWINNEY,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00422-LMB-1)

        Submitted: December 14, 2023                                Decided: December 19, 2023

        Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Taleek Sherrod Swinney, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Patrick Hudson, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6805      Doc: 8        Filed: 12/19/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Taleek Sherrod Swinney appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to

        quash restitution. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

        we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Swinney, No. 1:13-cr-00422-LMB-1

        (E.D. Va. filed July 31, 2023 & entered Aug. 1, 2023). Further, we deny Swinney’s motion

        for preparation of transcripts at the government’s expense.         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

                                                    2