Filed: May 23, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6003 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JAMMY DERONE LEGETTE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:04-cr-00795-TLW-1) Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: May 23, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jammy Derone Legette,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6003 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JAMMY DERONE LEGETTE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:04-cr-00795-TLW-1) Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: May 23, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jammy Derone Legette, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6003 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JAMMY DERONE LEGETTE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:04-cr-00795-TLW-1) Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: May 23, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jammy Derone Legette, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jammy Derone Legette appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Legette, No. 4:04-cr-00795-TLW-1 (D.S.C. filed Dec. 10 and entered Dec. 14, 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
