Opinion
No. 15-6970
01-05-2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRENDA KAY WARE, Defendant - Appellant.
ARGUED: Jason Paul Steed, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN LLP, Dallas, Texas, for Appellant. Donald M. Kersey, III, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Tara N. Tighe, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:97-cr-00047-FPS-2) Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and Elizabeth K. DILLON, United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: Jason Paul Steed, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN LLP, Dallas, Texas, for Appellant. Donald M. Kersey, III, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Tara N. Tighe, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
In 1997, a federal jury convicted Brenda Kay Ware of conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; two counts of fraud by wire, radio, or television, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and one count of making a false or fictitious statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The district court sentenced her to ten months of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. In February 2015, Ware wrote a letter to the district judge who imposed the sentence, asking that the court seal the record of her criminal conviction. The court construed the letter as either a motion to seal or a motion to expunge, and it denied relief.
Having reviewed the record, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we find no error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of relief.
AFFIRMED