Filed: Aug. 05, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7811 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT LEE SPENCER, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-171) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 5, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Spence
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7811 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT LEE SPENCER, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-171) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 5, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Spencer..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7811
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT LEE SPENCER, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis-
trict of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert J. Staker, Senior
District Judge. (CR-95-171)
Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 5, 1997
Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Lee Spencer, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Agnes Hickey,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on
his petition for a writ of mandamus for production and copy of
transcripts and the master file in his criminal case. We have
reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no
abuse of discretion. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
426
U.S. 394, 403 (1976). Accordingly, we affirm. 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