Filed: Sep. 05, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6447 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HENRY WESLEY CHISOLM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-98-1186) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 5, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6447 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HENRY WESLEY CHISOLM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-98-1186) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 5, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6447 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HENRY WESLEY CHISOLM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-98-1186) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 5, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Wesley Chisolm, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Henry Wesley Chisolm appeals the district court’s order denying his motion styled as one to Correct a Plain Error Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See United States v. Chisolm, No. CR-98-1186 (D.S.C. Jan. 31, 2002). 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
