Filed: Feb. 16, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7730 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DAVID HENDERSON, a/k/a Charldrick James Robinson, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:05-cr-00163-FL-1) Submitted: February 7, 2011 Decided: February 16, 2011 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7730 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DAVID HENDERSON, a/k/a Charldrick James Robinson, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:05-cr-00163-FL-1) Submitted: February 7, 2011 Decided: February 16, 2011 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7730 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DAVID HENDERSON, a/k/a Charldrick James Robinson, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:05-cr-00163-FL-1) Submitted: February 7, 2011 Decided: February 16, 2011 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Henderson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to correct a clerical error in the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Henderson, No. 5:05-cr-00163-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 29, 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
