US v. Bernard Celestine


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:95-cr-00041-H-9 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000106021]. Mailed to: Bernard Celestine. [17-6148]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6148 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/23/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6148 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BERNARD CELESTINE, a/k/a Speed, a/k/a Beaver, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:95-cr-00041-H-9) Submitted: June 20, 2017 Decided: June 23, 2017 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Celestine, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua Bryan Royster, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-6148 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/23/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Bernard Celestine appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Celestine, No. 4:95-cr-00041-H-9 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 25, 2017); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 (“After giving any notice it considers appropriate, the court may at any time correct a clerical error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, or correct an error in the record arising from oversight or omission.” (emphasis added)). 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?