Filed: Oct. 06, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7124 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NORMAN TYRONE DAIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Florence, at District of South Carolina. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:03-cr-00386-TLW-1) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 6, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman Tyrone Dais, Appellan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7124 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NORMAN TYRONE DAIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Florence, at District of South Carolina. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:03-cr-00386-TLW-1) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 6, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman Tyrone Dais, Appellant..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7124 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NORMAN TYRONE DAIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Florence, at District of South Carolina. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:03-cr-00386-TLW-1) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 6, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman Tyrone Dais, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Norman Tyrone Dais appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for production of documents for his inspection. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Dais has not given any substantial reason for granting the request. We also deny his motion for an expedited appeal. 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
