Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Ingram, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    31 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Walter Louis Ingram's motion for resentencing and to correct his presentence investigation report. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not have jurisdiction to resentence Ingram or correct information in the report. The court also decided that oral arguments were not necessary because the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the court documents.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-04-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-6273

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Walter Louis Ingram's motion for resentencing and to correct his presentence investigation report. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not have jurisdiction to resentence Ingram or correct information in the report. The court also decided that oral arguments were not necessary because the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the court documents.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    31 views2 pages

    United States v. Ingram, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Walter Louis Ingram's motion for resentencing and to correct his presentence investigation report. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not have jurisdiction to resentence Ingram or correct information in the report. The court also decided that oral arguments were not necessary because the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the court documents.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 06-6273

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    WALTER LOUIS INGRAM,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior District Judge.
    (1:92-cr-00116-HNM-1)

    Submitted: April 20, 2006

    Decided: April 26, 2006

    Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Walter Louis Ingram, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Walter Louis Ingram appeals a district courts order
    denying his motion for resentencing and to correct erroneous
    information in the presentence investigation report.
    court was without jurisdiction to do either.

    The district

    Accordingly, we

    affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like