Filed: Jun. 30, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6343 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. J. HAROLD SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:85-cr-00166-GRA-1) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 30, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Harold Smith, Appellan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6343 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. J. HAROLD SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:85-cr-00166-GRA-1) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 30, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Harold Smith, Appellant..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6343 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. J. HAROLD SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:85-cr-00166-GRA-1) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 30, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Harold Smith, Appellant Pro Se. William Corley Lucius, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: J. Harold Smith appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for transcripts at the Government’s expense and denying reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Smith, No. 8:85-cr-00166-GRA-1 (D.S.C. Sept. 9, 2008; Feb. 12, 2009). We also deny Smith’s motion to appoint counsel and 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
