Filed: Nov. 23, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7052 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES JEROME ADAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (1:91-cr-00291-PMD-2) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Jerome Adams,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7052 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES JEROME ADAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (1:91-cr-00291-PMD-2) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Jerome Adams, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7052 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES JEROME ADAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (1:91-cr-00291-PMD-2) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Jerome Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Thomas Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Jerome Adams appeals the district court’s orders denying his petition for a writ of audita querela and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Adams, No. 1:91-cr-00291-PMD-2 (D.S.C. May 26, 2009). 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
