United States v. Salazar

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Salazar

418 F. App'x 167

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Salazar. Read the opinion of the Court — 338 F. App'x 338 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided March 18, 2011·No. No. 10-7333·Published

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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 motion for a new trial based on new evidence. His motion was based upon alleged new evidence regarding his attorney’s suspension for actions in another case. On appeal, Salazar does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that this is not the type of evidence that can support a Rule 33 motion. As such, he has waived any challenge to the district court’s dispositive ruling. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (failure to raise claim in informal brief waives consideration of that claim). Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Salazar’s motions for appointment of counsel and for a transcript. 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 motion for a new trial based on new evidence. His motion was based upon alleged new evidence regarding his attorney’s suspension for actions in another case. On appeal, Salazar does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that this is not the type of evidence that can support a Rule 33 motion. As such, he has waived any challenge to the district court’s dispositive ruling. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (failure to raise claim in informal brief waives consideration of that claim). Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Salazar’s motions for appointment of counsel and for a transcript. 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.

United States v. Salazar, 418 F. App'x 167 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

418 F. App'x 167 (United States v. Salazar) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.