Court Opinion

ID: 1001418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:55:07.967351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:03.354527
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 99-7060

ROSARIO A. FIORANI, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge.
(CR-98-340-A)

Submitted: December 29, 1999

Decided: April 17, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. G. David Hackney, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., appeals the district court's order denying
his motion for the appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the
record and find no error in the district court's denial. See United
States v. Fiorani, No. CR-98-340-A (E.D. Va. July 14, 1999).

After this Court appointed Fiorani counsel for representation on
direct appeal, Fiorani moved to dismiss his appeal pursuant to Fed. R.
App. P. 42(b). Over two months after this Court granted Fiorani's
motion, he filed a pro se motion to reopen his appeal. This Court dis-
missed Fiorani's pro se motion to reopen the appeal without prejudice
to his refiling the motion by counsel. Rather than refiling his motion
by counsel appointed for him, Fiorani moved in the district court for
the appointment of counsel to assist him in his direct appeal. He now
appeals the district court's denial of that motion. We note that subse-
quent to the district court's denial, Fiorani filed in this Court a motion
to relieve his court-appointed attorney and to allow substitution of
counsel. We denied the motion.

Because this Court has already appointed counsel for representa-
tion on direct appeal and instructed Fiorani that substitution will not
be permitted, we affirm the district court's denial of Fiorani's motion.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     2