US v. Michael Paul Puzey

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000079494-2]; denying Motion for bail/release pending appeal (Local Rule 9(a) and (b)) [1000082452-2]; granting Motion for leave to file a reply to the Government's objection to motion for release [1000094625-2] Originating case number: 3:00-cr-00057-GMG-RWT-16,3:00-cr-00064-GMG-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000124497]. Mailed to: Michael Paul Puzey. [17-6316]

Appeal: 17-6316

Doc: 29

Filed: 07/25/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6316

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL PAUL PUZEY, a/k/a Big Pete,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:00-cr-00057-GMG-RWT-16;
3:00-cr-00064-GMG-2)

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 25, 2017

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Paul Puzey, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States
Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6316

Doc: 29

Filed: 07/25/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Michael Paul Puzey appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to alter
or amend judgment, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), in which he sought reconsideration of the
court’s prior order denying relief on Puzey’s Fed. R Civ. P. 60(d) (3) motion challenging
his underlying conviction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Puzey, Nos. 3:00-cr-00057-GMG-RWT-16; 3:00-cr-00064-GMG-2 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 21,
2017). We deny Puzey’s motions for appointment of counsel and for bail or release
pending appeal; we grant Puzey’s motion to file a reply to the Government’s objection to
his motion for release. 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