Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Raymond Chestnut, 14-7265 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-7265 Visitors: 30
Filed: Dec. 23, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7265 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:05-cr-01044-RBH-1) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 23, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7265 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:05-cr-01044-RBH-1) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 23, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Edward Chestnut, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Raymond Edward Chestnut appeals the district court’s orders denying without prejudice his motion to correct the presentence investigation report and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Chestnut, No. 4:05-cr- 01044-RBH-1 (D.S.C. Aug. 1 & Aug. 18, 2014). Chestnut’s motions for appointment of counsel and for preparation of a transcript at Government expense are denied. 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