United States v. Salazar

396 F. App'x 44
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 20, 2010·No. No. 09-7391·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Martin F. Salazar appeals the district court’s order denying his repetitive motion for a new trial. The district court had previously denied several motions by Salazar for a new trial, including two motions raising essentially the identical “new evidence” raised in Salazar’s instant 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. Salazar, No. 1:06-cr00123-MBS-1 (D.S.C. April 7, 2008 & June 29, 2009). We deny Salazar’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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

United States v. Salazar, 396 F. App'x 44 (4th Cir. 2010).

396 F. App'x 44 (United States v. Salazar) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Salazar v. Office of Personnel Management
495 F. App'x 64 (Federal Circuit, 2012)