Filed: Oct. 29, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7051 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ERIC DEWAYNE SPENCER, a/k/a High School, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-99-12) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 29, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7051 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ERIC DEWAYNE SPENCER, a/k/a High School, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-99-12) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 29, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by u..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7051 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ERIC DEWAYNE SPENCER, a/k/a High School, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-99-12) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 29, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Dewayne Spencer, Appellant Pro Se. Monica Kaminski Schwartz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Eric Dewayne Spencer appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for new trial and subsequent motion for recon- sideration of that denial. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. According- ly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Spencer, No. CR-99-12 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 30 & June 4, 2001). We further deny Spencer’s motions for injunctive relief and for designation of records. 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