Filed: May 25, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6047 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LARRY CHAPMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-209) Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 25, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Chapman, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Fra
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6047 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LARRY CHAPMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-209) Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 25, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Chapman, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Fran..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6047
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LARRY CHAPMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-99-209)
Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 25, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Chapman, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Frank McDonald, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, W. Walter
Wilkins, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Larry Chapman appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion for production of documents. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave
to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the
district court.* See United States v. Chapman, No. CR-99-209
(D.S.C. Oct. 29, 2004). 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
*
We decline to address the issue with respect to United
States v. Booker,
125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), as Chapman raises it for
the first time in his informal brief and it is inapplicable to his
case.
- 2 -