United States v. Ebersole , 234 F. App'x 63 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7405
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RUSSELL LEE EBERSOLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 07-6197
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RUSSELL LEE EBERSOLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (1:03-cr-00112-LMB)
Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 26, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Russell Lee Ebersole, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Higgins McQuillan,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Following his convictions on twenty-five counts of wire
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1343 (West Supp. 2007), and
two counts of presenting false claims to the government, in
contravention of 18 U.S.C. § 287 (2000), and his unsuccessful
appeal of his convictions, Russell Lee Ebersole filed post-judgment
motions which are the subject of these consolidated appeals. In
Appeal No. 07-6197, Ebersole challenges the district court’s orders
denying his motion for a new trial and related motions, and denying
his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. United States v. Ebersole, No. 1:03-
cr-00112-LMB (E.D. Va. July 25, 2006 & Jan. 26, 2007). In Appeal
No. 06-7405, Ebersole appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion for immediate release. By failing to raise this claim
in his informal brief, Ebersole has waived this issue. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). Ebersole’s motion to stay the subject appeals
pending his recovery from surgery is denied. We also deny as moot
his motion for a stay or extension of time to file his informal
brief in Appeal No. 07-6197. 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
- 3 -