Filed: Jan. 19, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7244 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TORRANCE JONES, a/k/a Tube, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:96-cr-00079-BO-1) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 19, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Torrance Jones, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7244 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TORRANCE JONES, a/k/a Tube, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:96-cr-00079-BO-1) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 19, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Torrance Jones, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7244 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TORRANCE JONES, a/k/a Tube, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:96-cr-00079-BO-1) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 19, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Torrance Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Torrance Jones appeals the district court’s order denying his motion seeking an order requiring the probation officer to turn over witness statements used to prepare his presentence report. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Jones, No. 5:96-cr-00079-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 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
