US v. Brenda Ware

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:97-cr-00047-FPS-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999729814].. [15-6970]

Appeal: 15-6970

Doc: 33

Filed: 01/05/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6970

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BRENDA KAY WARE,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:97-cr-00047-FPS-2)

Argued:

December 8, 2015

Decided:

January 5, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and Elizabeth
K. DILLON, United States District Judge for the Western District
of Virginia, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Jason Paul Steed, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN LLP, Dallas,
Texas, for Appellant.
Donald M. Kersey, III, WEST VIRGINIA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW, Morgantown, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
ON BRIEF: William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States
Attorney, Tara N. Tighe, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6970

Doc: 33

Filed: 01/05/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
In

1997,

conspiracy

to

a

federal

defraud

jury

the

convicted

United

States,

Brenda
in

Kay

Ware

violation

of

of
18

U.S.C. § 371; two counts of fraud by wire, radio, or television,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and one count of making a
false or fictitious statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
The district court sentenced her to ten months of imprisonment
and a three-year term of supervised release. In February 2015,
Ware

wrote

a

letter

to

the

district

judge

who

imposed

the

sentence, asking that the court seal the record of her criminal
conviction. The court construed the letter as either a motion to
seal or a motion to expunge, and it denied relief.
Having reviewed the record, and having had the benefit of
oral

argument,

we

find

no

error.

Accordingly,

we

affirm

the

district court’s denial of relief.
AFFIRMED

2