Filed: Mar. 28, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7913 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LACEY LEROY MCCLAM, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:07-cr-01277-TLW-1) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lacey Leroy McClam, Jr.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7913 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LACEY LEROY MCCLAM, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:07-cr-01277-TLW-1) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lacey Leroy McClam, Jr.,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7913 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LACEY LEROY MCCLAM, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:07-cr-01277-TLW-1) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lacey Leroy McClam, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lacey McClam, Jr., appeals from the district court’s margin order denying his motion to compel defense counsel to produce documents. Our review of the record discloses that this appeal is without merit. McClam has not demonstrated a particularized need or raised any specific issues in regard to the requested documents. Accordingly, we affirm. 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
