Filed: Jun. 17, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERIC GILES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:09-cr-00203-RJC-DCK-1) Submitted: May 13, 2016 Decided: June 17, 2016 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Giles, Appellant Pro Se
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERIC GILES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:09-cr-00203-RJC-DCK-1) Submitted: May 13, 2016 Decided: June 17, 2016 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Giles, Appellant Pro Se...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC GILES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:09-cr-00203-RJC-DCK-1)
Submitted: May 13, 2016 Decided: June 17, 2016
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Giles, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Giles appeals the district court’s order denying his
Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion for a new trial, which Giles filed
pro se. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of
discretion in either of the identified bases for the district
court’s ruling. See United States v. Robinson,
627 F.3d 941,
948 (4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See United States v. Giles, No. 3:09–cr–00203–RJC-DCK–1
(W.D.N.C. Sept. 15, 2015). 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