Filed: Jun. 25, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VIRGIL W. WOMACK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-00-27; CA-00-236) Submitted: May 28, 2004 Decided: June 25, 2004 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Virgil W. Womack, Appellant P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VIRGIL W. WOMACK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-00-27; CA-00-236) Submitted: May 28, 2004 Decided: June 25, 2004 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Virgil W. Womack, Appellant Pr..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VIRGIL W. WOMACK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-00-27; CA-00-236) Submitted: May 28, 2004 Decided: June 25, 2004 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Virgil W. Womack, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Virgil W. Womack appeals the district court’s order of December 5, 2003, denying his “Motion to Vacate Restitution Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k).” We have reviewed the record and the court’s order and find no reversible error in the denial of Womack’s motion. Accordingly, we affirm. 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 -
