Filed: Jan. 09, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7835 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SHELTON LAMONT MAXWELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-94-6-V) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: January 9, 2002 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shelton Lamont Ma
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7835 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SHELTON LAMONT MAXWELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-94-6-V) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: January 9, 2002 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shelton Lamont Max..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7835 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SHELTON LAMONT MAXWELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-94-6-V) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: January 9, 2002 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shelton Lamont Maxwell, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Shelton Lamont Maxwell appeals from the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion. We have reviewed the rec- ord and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Maxwell, No. CR-94-6-V (W.D.N.C. Oct. 16, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
