Filed: Apr. 02, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7404 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL ANTHONY CARPENTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (3:03-cr-00013-sgw) Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 2, 2008 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7404 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL ANTHONY CARPENTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (3:03-cr-00013-sgw) Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 2, 2008 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7404 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL ANTHONY CARPENTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (3:03-cr-00013-sgw) Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 2, 2008 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Anthony Carpenter, Appellant Pro Se. William Frederick Gould, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Anthony Carpenter appeals the district court’s order denying Carpenter’s motion for free copies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Carpenter, No. 3:03-cr-00013-sgw (W.D. Va. Aug. 29, 2007). 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. DISMISSED - 2 -
