US v. Eric Van Buren


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for leave to file a Rule (d) motion [1000165570-2] Originating case number: 3:00-cr-00066-NKM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000179180]. Mailed to: E Van Buren. [17-6897]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6897 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/24/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6897 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERIC MARTIN VANBUREN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:00-cr-00066-NKM-1) Submitted: October 19, 2017 Decided: October 24, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Martin Van Buren, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-6897 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/24/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Eric Martin VanBuren appeals the district court’s orders denying his most recent attempts for a sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny VanBuren’s self-styled motion for leave to file a Rule (d) motion and affirm the district court’s orders. See United States v. VanBuren, No. 3:00-cr00066-NKM-1 (W.D. Va. June 27, 2017 & July 6, 2017). 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?