Filed: Feb. 17, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6924 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GUY ANTHONY DILLARD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-173) Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 17, 2000 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6924 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GUY ANTHONY DILLARD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-173) Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 17, 2000 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6924 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GUY ANTHONY DILLARD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-173) Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 17, 2000 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Guy Anthony Dillard, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Guy Anthony Dillard appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for preparation of transcripts at government expense. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, while we grant Dillard leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Dillard, No. CR-93-173 (W.D. Va. June 17, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
