UNPUBLISHED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No. 03-7006, remanded and No. 03-7433, affirmed by unpublished per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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -