UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4507
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROLAND L. MAYS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CR-05-30)
Submitted: October 28, 2005 Decided: November 15, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial before a magistrate judge, Roland
Mays was convicted of forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing,
impeding, intimidating, and interfering with a military police
officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 111 (West Supp. 2005) (Count
1); communicating a threat, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 13 (2000),
assimilating N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-277.1 (1993) (Count 3); and
resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 13, assimilating N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-223 (1993)
(Count 4). The magistrate judge sentenced Mays to twelve months on
Count 1, a consecutive four months on Count 3, and a concurrent
sixty days on Count 4. Mays appealed to the district court,
challenging the magistrate judge's imposition of a consecutive
sentence on Count 3. The district court affirmed Mays' sentence
and Mays timely appealed. We find no error in the district court's
order affirming the sentence imposed by the magistrate judge.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See United States v. Mays, No. CR-05-30 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 1,
2005). 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 -