Filed: Oct. 12, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARL BENIT COOPER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-206) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 12, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl Benit Cooper, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARL BENIT COOPER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-206) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 12, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl Benit Cooper, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARL BENIT COOPER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-206) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 12, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl Benit Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Howe Hendricks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Carl Benit Cooper appeals the district court order denying his motion filed under Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We have reviewed the record and the district court order and find no reversible order. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Cooper, No. CR-95-206 (D.S.C. filed Mar. 2, 2001; entered March 6, 2001). 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
