Filed: Aug. 28, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6220 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TRUMAN SCOTT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:98-cr-00079-F) Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 28, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Trum
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6220 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TRUMAN SCOTT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:98-cr-00079-F) Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 28, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Truma..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6220
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TRUMAN SCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District
Judge. (7:98-cr-00079-F)
Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 28, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Truman Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Truman Scott appeals the district court’s order denying
his “Motion for Disclosure of Grand Jury Material.” We have
reviewed the record and find no clear error in the district court’s
denial. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(ii); In re Grand Jury
Proceedings,
800 F.2d 1293, 1298-99 (4th Cir. 1986) (stating review
standard). 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 -