Filed: Apr. 04, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7459 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM SPRUILL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-99-117-RAJ) Submitted: March 8, 2006 Decided: April 4, 2006 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Spruill, Appellant Pro Se. La
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7459 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM SPRUILL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-99-117-RAJ) Submitted: March 8, 2006 Decided: April 4, 2006 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Spruill, Appellant Pro Se. Lau..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7459 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM SPRUILL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-99-117-RAJ) Submitted: March 8, 2006 Decided: April 4, 2006 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Spruill, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Spruill appeals the district court’s order denying Spruill’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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. Spruill, No. CR-99-117-RAJ (E.D. Va. July 13, 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 -
