Filed: Jun. 04, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6366 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GARLAND CALHOUN, a/k/a Chinaman, a/k/a The People’s Republic of China, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-99-664) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 4, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6366 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GARLAND CALHOUN, a/k/a Chinaman, a/k/a The People’s Republic of China, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-99-664) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 4, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cur..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6366 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GARLAND CALHOUN, a/k/a Chinaman, a/k/a The People’s Republic of China, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-99-664) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 4, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Garland Calhoun, Appellant Pro Se. Miller Williams Shealy, Jr., 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Garland Calhoun appeals the district court’s order declaring his motion to compel the court to review his presentence report moot. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Calhoun, No. CR-99-664 (D.S.C. Jan. 29, 2003). 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
