Filed: Nov. 07, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7030 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TAVARIS LEON DUNLAP, a/k/a Onion, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00482-TLW-3) Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 7, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tavaris Leon
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7030 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TAVARIS LEON DUNLAP, a/k/a Onion, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00482-TLW-3) Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 7, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tavaris Leon ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7030 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TAVARIS LEON DUNLAP, a/k/a Onion, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00482-TLW-3) Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 7, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tavaris Leon Dunlap, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Tavaris Leon Dunlap appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Dunlap, No. 4:07-cr-00482-TLW-3 (D.S.C. May 30, 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
