United States v. Crook

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Crook

643 F. App'x 265

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided April 1, 2016·No. Nos. 15-7791, 15-7793·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Paul Crook appeals from the district court’s order denying his motions [266] filed in his related criminal cases. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Crook, Nos. 3:04-cr-00058-MOC-DSC-1; 3:04-cr-00059-MOC-DSC-1 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 2015). We deny Crook’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials befóre this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Paul Crook appeals from the district court’s order denying his motions [266] filed in his related criminal cases. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Crook, Nos. 3:04-cr-00058-MOC-DSC-1; 3:04-cr-00059-MOC-DSC-1 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 2015). We deny Crook’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials befóre this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

United States v. Crook, 643 F. App'x 265 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

643 F. App'x 265 (United States v. Crook) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.