Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Wayne EDDINGTON, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Wayne Eddington, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-20
Citations: 548 F. App'x 914
Docket Number: Nos. 13-7711, 13-7762
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Wayne EDDINGTON, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Wayne Eddington, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 548
Pages: 914–915

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Wayne EDDINGTON, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Wayne Eddington, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 13-7711, 13-7762.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 17, 2013.
Decided: Dec. 20, 2013.
Timothy Wayne Eddington, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Claude Jendron, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Wayne Eddington was convicted in a 2008 jury trial of conspiracy to commit bank robbery and related charges. This court affirmed the convictions on appeal. United States v. Eddington, 416 Fed.Appx. 258 (4th Cir.2011) (Nos.08-4798/4799). His 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2018) motion to vacate has also been rejected. See United States v. Eddington, 520 Fed.Appx. 214 (4th Cir.2013) (No. 12-7989). In these consolidated appeals, Eddington challenges district court orders denying his motion for discovery and motion to remove the district court's separation order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Eddington, No. 0:07-cr-01149-CMC-1 (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 2013; Oct. 4, 2013). 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.
The district court's criminal judgment ordered that Eddington be housed in a different institution from his son and other codefendants.