US v. Martin Salazar

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998158733-2] Originating case number: 1:06-cr-00123-MBS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998428108] [09-7391]

Download PDF
US v. Martin Salazar Doc. 0 Case: 09-7391 Document: 29 Date Filed: 09/20/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7391 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MARTIN F. SALAZAR, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00123-MBS-1) Submitted: September 10, 2010 Decided: September 20, 2010 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martin F. Salazar, Appellant Pro Se. Dean A. Eichelberger, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 09-7391 Document: 29 Date Filed: 09/20/2010 Page: 2 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. reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We have Accordingly, United we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. States v. Salazar, No. 1:06-cr-00123-MBS-1 (D.S.C. April 7, 2008 & June 29, 2009). counsel. legal before We deny Salazar's motion for appointment of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional contentions the court would process. AFFIRMED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?