Filed: May 26, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6260 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN PAUL DYKE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-01-82) Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 26, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Dyke, Appellant Pro Se. Unp
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6260 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN PAUL DYKE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-01-82) Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 26, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Dyke, Appellant Pro Se. Unpu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6260
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN PAUL DYKE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CR-01-82)
Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 26, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Paul Dyke, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John Paul Dyke appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion to substitute counsel. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. We conclude that Dyke cannot show
prejudice arising from the district court’s denial of his motion
for appointment of counsel. See Miller v. Simmons,
814 F.2d 962,
966 (4th Cir. 1987) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, 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 -