Filed: Oct. 08, 2020
Latest Update: Oct. 08, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6657 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WAYNE PORTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (3:85-cr-00062-MR-1) Submitted: September 30, 2020 Decided: October 8, 2020 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6657 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WAYNE PORTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (3:85-cr-00062-MR-1) Submitted: September 30, 2020 Decided: October 8, 2020 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6657 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WAYNE PORTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (3:85-cr-00062-MR-1) Submitted: September 30, 2020 Decided: October 8, 2020 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Porter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wayne Porter appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Porter, No. 3:85-cr-00062-MR- 1 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 13, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
