Filed: Aug. 31, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6416 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RUFUS HOPKINS, a/k/a Rock, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:07-cr-00153-JFA-1) Submitted: August 28, 2018 Decided: August 31, 2018 Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6416 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RUFUS HOPKINS, a/k/a Rock, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:07-cr-00153-JFA-1) Submitted: August 28, 2018 Decided: August 31, 2018 Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6416 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RUFUS HOPKINS, a/k/a Rock, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:07-cr-00153-JFA-1) Submitted: August 28, 2018 Decided: August 31, 2018 Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rufus Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rufus Hopkins appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Hopkins, No. 3:07-cr-00153-JFA-1 (D.S.C. Mar. 27, 2018). 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
