Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Lamatavous Collins, 13-7049 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-7049 Visitors: 3
Filed: Aug. 27, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7049 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LAMATAVOUS REGTEZ COLLINS, a/k/a Red, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00466-MBS-3) Submitted: August 22, 2013 Decided: August 27, 2013 Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lamatavous
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7049 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LAMATAVOUS REGTEZ COLLINS, a/k/a Red, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00466-MBS-3) Submitted: August 22, 2013 Decided: August 27, 2013 Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lamatavous Regtez Collins, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D. Ragsdale, John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lamatavous Regtez Collins appeals the district court’s order denying his second motion for a new trial and denying his motion for the return of forfeited property. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we deny leave to proceed under the Criminal Justice Act, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Collins, No. 1:10-cr-00466-MBS-3 (D.S.C. June 24, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer