Filed: Sep. 18, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6818 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARTHUR OSCAR SWAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-95-365) Submitted: September 8, 2000 Decided: September 18, 2000 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Art
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6818 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARTHUR OSCAR SWAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-95-365) Submitted: September 8, 2000 Decided: September 18, 2000 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arth..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6818 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARTHUR OSCAR SWAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-95-365) Submitted: September 8, 2000 Decided: September 18, 2000 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Oscar Swan, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Arthur Oscar Swan appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel the Government to comply with the terms of the plea agreement by filing a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Swan, No. CR-95-365 (D.S.C. May 16, 2000). 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
