United States v. Lineberger , 88 F. App'x 655 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4531
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
VINCENT EUGENE LINEBERGER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-96-11)
Submitted: February 11, 2004 Decided: February 27, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vincent Eugene Lineberger, Appellant Pro Se. Robert James Conrad,
Jr., United States Attorney; Holly Anne Pierson, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
In a prior appeal by Vincent Eugene Lineberger, we
vacated his criminal judgment and remanded the case to the district
court for resentencing for the limited purpose of stating a
definite date by which Lineberger’s sentence was to begin. See
United States v. Golden, 795 F.2d 19, 21 (3d Cir. 1986). On
remand, the district court amended the judgment to state that
Lineberger was to “begin his sentence on October 23, 1998.” The
court also corrected a clerical mistake in the original judgment
order and changed the order in which the counts were listed in
several sections of the judgment. Lineberger now appeals from the
amended judgment and from the district court’s order denying his
motion to vacate the amended judgment.* Our review of the record
and the district court’s orders has disclosed no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm. Lineberger has raised numerous issues on
appeal. However, because these issues are outside the scope of the
remand, we decline to address them. 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
*
Although Lineberger completed the service of his term of
imprisonment, this appeal is not moot because he is still subject
to a three-year term of supervised release.
- 2 -