United States v. Womack , 86 F. App'x 586 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7006
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    VIRGIL W. WOMACK,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    No. 03-7433
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    VIRGIL W. WOMACK,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson.    G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (CR-00-27; CA-00-236)
    Submitted: December 30, 2003               Decided:   February 3, 2004
    Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    No. 03-7006, remanded and No. 03-7433, affirmed by unpublished per
    curiam opinion.
    Virgil W. Womack, Appellant Pro Se.    Marvin Jennings Caughman,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, David
    Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville,
    South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    - 2 -
    PER CURIAM:
    In appeal number 03-7006, Virgil Womack seeks to appeal
    the district court’s adverse rulings relative to an evidentiary
    hearing held on June 11, 2003.       In his informal brief, however,
    Womack challenges only the district court’s rulings on his motions
    for return of property, for a government accounting, and for
    appointment of counsel, and thus waives review of any other ruling.
    See Local Rule 34(b).        Because the hearing transcript does not
    clearly reflect the district court’s ruling relative to the Fed. R.
    Crim. P. 41 motion, and because there exist discrepancies between
    the hearing transcript and the district court’s docket sheet
    reflecting the district court’s rulings on these motions, we remand
    the case to the district court for the court to enter a written
    order reflecting its disposition of the issues considered during
    the   June    11,   2003,   evidentiary   hearing.   The   record,   as
    supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further
    consideration.      We deny Womack’s motion filed in this court to
    strike civil action number CV-00-236 from this appeal.
    In appeal number 03-7433, Womack appeals the district
    court’s denial of his motion for correction or modification of the
    record pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 10(e)(1).     Finding no showing of
    intentional misrepresentation or plain unreasonableness, we affirm
    the district court’s order denying Womack’s Rule 10(e)(1) motion.
    United States v. Zichettello, 
    208 F.3d 72
    , 93 (2d Cir. 2000).
    - 3 -
    Womack has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Because
    this    case   presents   neither    complex   issues   nor   exceptional
    circumstances, Whisenant v. Yuam, 
    739 F.2d 160
    , 163 (4th Cir.
    1984), we deny his 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.
    No. 03-7006 - REMANDED
    No. 03-7433 - AFFIRMED
    - 4 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-7006, 03-7433

Citation Numbers: 86 F. App'x 586

Judges: Gregory, Per Curiam, Widener, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 2/3/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023