Filed: Dec. 19, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6745 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MONROE HAROLD SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:09-cr-00032-BO-1; 4:12-cv-00161-BO) Submitted: December 5, 2013 Decided: December 19, 2013 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mo
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6745 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MONROE HAROLD SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:09-cr-00032-BO-1; 4:12-cv-00161-BO) Submitted: December 5, 2013 Decided: December 19, 2013 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mon..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6745
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MONROE HAROLD SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (4:09-cr-00032-BO-1; 4:12-cv-00161-BO)
Submitted: December 5, 2013 Decided: December 19, 2013
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Monroe Harold Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Monroe Harold Smith appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013)
motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Smith’s motion for
appointment of counsel. 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