Filed: Jun. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6573 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LARRY MICHAEL COPELAND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00082-MR-2) Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015 Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Michael Copel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6573 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LARRY MICHAEL COPELAND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00082-MR-2) Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015 Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Michael Copela..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6573 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LARRY MICHAEL COPELAND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00082-MR-2) Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015 Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Michael Copeland, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Michael Copeland appeals the district court’s order denying his fourth motion for transcripts at Government expense. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Copeland, No. 1:08-cr-00082-MR-2 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 17, 2015). 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
