Filed: Nov. 26, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6966 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HERBERT COUNCIL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:92-cr-00097-GCM-20) Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 26, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cur
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6966 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HERBERT COUNCIL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:92-cr-00097-GCM-20) Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 26, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6966 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HERBERT COUNCIL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:92-cr-00097-GCM-20) Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 26, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herbert Council, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Michel Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Herbert Council appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2000) petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. Our review of the record discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Council’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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. In light of this disposition, we deny as moot Council’s motion for emergency summary disposition by a single judge. AFFIRMED 2
