Filed: Apr. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6198 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SONNY LAVORIS MACK, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:08-cr-01252-TLW-1; 4:11-cv-02034-TLW) Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: April 26, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sonny Lavoris M
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6198 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SONNY LAVORIS MACK, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:08-cr-01252-TLW-1; 4:11-cv-02034-TLW) Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: April 26, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sonny Lavoris Ma..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6198 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SONNY LAVORIS MACK, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:08-cr-01252-TLW-1; 4:11-cv-02034-TLW) Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: April 26, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sonny Lavoris Mack, Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sonny Lavoris Mack appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mack v. United States, No. 4:08-cr-01252-TLW-1 (D.S.C. Jan. 6, 2012). 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
