Filed: Nov. 30, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7451 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ADRIAN HOWARD JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-98-1126-JFA) Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 30, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Adrian
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7451 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ADRIAN HOWARD JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-98-1126-JFA) Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 30, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Adrian ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7451 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ADRIAN HOWARD JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-98-1126-JFA) Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 30, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Adrian Howard Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Adrian Howard Jackson appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his motion, filed in his criminal case, to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 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. Jackson, No. CR-98-1126-JFA (D.S.C. Sept. 8, 2005). 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 -
