Filed: Aug. 02, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6375 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMUEL PAUL CROOK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:04-cr-00058-MR-1) Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 2, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Paul Crook, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6375 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMUEL PAUL CROOK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:04-cr-00058-MR-1) Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 2, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Paul Crook, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6375 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMUEL PAUL CROOK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:04-cr-00058-MR-1) Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 2, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Paul Crook, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Samuel Paul Crook appeals the district court’s order denying his 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. United States v. Crook, No. 3:04-cr-00058-MR-1 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 25, 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
