US v. Todd Mo

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to supplement the record [999368527-2] Originating case number: 7:05-cr-00526-HMH-3,7:98-cr-00610-HMH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999445711]. Mailed to: Todd Moss. [14-6673]

Appeal: 14-6673

Doc: 6

Filed: 09/30/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6673

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TODD LAMAR MOSS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:05-cr-00526-HMH-3; 7:98-cr-00610-HMH-1)

Submitted:

September 25, 2014

Decided:

September 30, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Todd Lamar Moss, Appellant Pro Se.
Maxwell B. Cauthen, III,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6673

Doc: 6

Filed: 09/30/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Todd

Lamar

Moss

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

denying his “motion to clarify the original intent regarding
concurrent sentences” and a subsequent text order denying his
motion to amend/correct the previous order.
the record and find no reversible error.

We have reviewed

Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court.

United States v.

Moss, No. 7:05-cr-00526-HMH-3; 7:98-cr-00610-HMH-1 (D.S.C. Mar.
25, 2014 & Apr. 14, 2014).
supplement the record.

We further deny Moss’s motion to

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2