Filed: May 22, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7108 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROGER DEWITT PRINCE, a/k/a Bill Prince, a/k/a Ike Davis, Defendant - Appellant, and DON PRINCE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CR-96-122) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 22, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7108 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROGER DEWITT PRINCE, a/k/a Bill Prince, a/k/a Ike Davis, Defendant - Appellant, and DON PRINCE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CR-96-122) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 22, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affir..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7108 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROGER DEWITT PRINCE, a/k/a Bill Prince, a/k/a Ike Davis, Defendant - Appellant, and DON PRINCE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CR-96-122) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 22, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger DeWitt Prince, Appellant Pro Se. Scarlett Anne Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Roger DeWitt Prince appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a new trial. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. According- ly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Prince, No. CR-96-122 (D.S.C. July 20, 2000). We dis- pense 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
