Filed: Apr. 28, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6234 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER RAPHAEL WOODBERRY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:02-cr-00040-TLW-1) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christophe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6234 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER RAPHAEL WOODBERRY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:02-cr-00040-TLW-1) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6234 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER RAPHAEL WOODBERRY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:02-cr-00040-TLW-1) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Raphael Woodberry, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher Raphael Woodberry appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for specific performance of the plea agreement in his underlying criminal conviction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Woodberry, No. 4:02-cr-00040-TLW-1 (D.S.C. Jan. 27, 2010). 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
