Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Albert Nelson, 14-6791 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-6791 Visitors: 21
Filed: Oct. 01, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6791 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ALBERT SHAW NELSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (5:95-cr-00333-CMC-5) Submitted: September 22, 2014 Decided: October 1, 2014 Before MOTZ, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Shaw Nelson,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6791 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ALBERT SHAW NELSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (5:95-cr-00333-CMC-5) Submitted: September 22, 2014 Decided: October 1, 2014 Before MOTZ, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Shaw Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman, Robert Claude Jendron, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Albert Shaw Nelson appeals the district court’s order denying his “Motion to Amend Motion to Set Aside Pursuant to Rule 60, in the Alternative an Independent Action for Relief from Judgment Under Rule 60(d)(1) and (3) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Nelson, No. 5:95-cr-00333-CMC- 5 (D.S.C. May 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer