Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Roberson v. Warden, Evans Corr, 02-7781 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7781 Visitors: 19
Filed: Feb. 25, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7781 TYRONE L. ROBERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, Evans Correctional Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, South Carolina Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-4090-8-11-B1) Submitted: February 4, 2003 Decided: February 25, 2003 Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and LUTTIG an
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7781 TYRONE L. ROBERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, Evans Correctional Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, South Carolina Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-4090-8-11-B1) Submitted: February 4, 2003 Decided: February 25, 2003 Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone L. Roberson, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tyrone L. Roberson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to amend the judgment filed August 27, 2002. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Roberson v. Warden, Evans Corr. Inst., No. CA-01-4090-8-11-B1 (D.S.C. Oct. 25, 2002). We also deny Roberson’s motion to amend his notice of appeal. 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer