Filed: May 29, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7917 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DANNY PRICE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-00-780) Submitted: May 13, 2003 Decided: May 29, 2003 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Price, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7917 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DANNY PRICE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-00-780) Submitted: May 13, 2003 Decided: May 29, 2003 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Price, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, As..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7917 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DANNY PRICE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-00-780) Submitted: May 13, 2003 Decided: May 29, 2003 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Price, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Danny Price appeals the district court’s order denying his request for various judicial documents at government expense. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Price, No. CR-00-780 (D.S.C. Oct. 17, 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
