Filed: Aug. 02, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6303 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHERWIN TIMOTHY FARMER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:98-cr-00033-jlk-1) Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 2, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sherwin Timothy Farm
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6303 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHERWIN TIMOTHY FARMER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:98-cr-00033-jlk-1) Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 2, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sherwin Timothy Farme..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6303 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHERWIN TIMOTHY FARMER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:98-cr-00033-jlk-1) Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 2, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sherwin Timothy Farmer, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sherwin Timothy Farmer appeals the district court’s order denying Farmer’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of Farmer’s motion for preparation of transcripts at government expense. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Farmer, No. 7:98-cr-00033-jlk- 1 (W.D. Va. Feb. 8, 2010). 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
