Filed: Apr. 10, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6006 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL ALONZA RUFUS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00550-MBS-1) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 10, 2013 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6006 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL ALONZA RUFUS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00550-MBS-1) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 10, 2013 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6006 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL ALONZA RUFUS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00550-MBS-1) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 10, 2013 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Alonza Rufus, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Alonza Rufus appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a writ of error coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Rufus, No. 3:02- cr-00550-MBS-1 (D.S.C. Dec. 11, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
