Filed: May 23, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6135 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BARRINGTON ISAACS, a/k/a Orville Griswold, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:98-cr-00356-DCN-3) Submitted: May 20, 2014 Decided: May 23, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barrington
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6135 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BARRINGTON ISAACS, a/k/a Orville Griswold, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:98-cr-00356-DCN-3) Submitted: May 20, 2014 Decided: May 23, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barrington I..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6135 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BARRINGTON ISAACS, a/k/a Orville Griswold, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:98-cr-00356-DCN-3) Submitted: May 20, 2014 Decided: May 23, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barrington Isaacs, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Peter Thomas Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Barrington Isaacs appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for an evidentiary hearing and denying his motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. United States v. Isaacs, No. 2:98-cr-00356-DCN-3 (D.S.C. Dec. 16, 2013 & Jan. 8, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
