Filed: Feb. 09, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7283 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RYAN CHRISTOPHER EADDY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:10-cr-00604-TLW-1) Submitted: January 18, 2017 Decided: February 9, 2017 Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ryan Christopher Eaddy
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7283 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RYAN CHRISTOPHER EADDY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:10-cr-00604-TLW-1) Submitted: January 18, 2017 Decided: February 9, 2017 Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ryan Christopher Eaddy,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7283 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RYAN CHRISTOPHER EADDY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:10-cr-00604-TLW-1) Submitted: January 18, 2017 Decided: February 9, 2017 Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ryan Christopher Eaddy, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Ryan Christopher Eaddy seeks to appeal the district court’s order disposing of his post-judgment motion. We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order and, thus, dismiss this appeal. 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. DISMISSED 2
