Filed: Apr. 28, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6272 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRUCE LEE JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (4:02-cr-00579-CWH-2) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Lee Johns
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6272 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRUCE LEE JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (4:02-cr-00579-CWH-2) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Lee Johnso..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6272 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRUCE LEE JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (4:02-cr-00579-CWH-2) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Lee Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. William E. Day, II, Rose Mary Sheppard Parham, Assistant United States Attorneys, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bruce Lee Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) to set aside his conviction on the ground that the criminal judgment against him is void. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Johnson, No. 4:02-cr-00579-CWH-2 (D.S.C. Feb. 1, 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
