Court Opinion

ID: 1014194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:12:44.114587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:37.739161
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
 

  Virgil W. Womack appeals the district court’s rulings relative to an evidentiary hearing held on June 11, 2003. Only Womack’s challenges to the district court’s rulings on his motions for return of property, for a government accounting, and for appointment of counsel are properly before this court for consideration.
  
   See
  
  Local Rule 34(b). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order reflecting its rulings relative to the motions at issue. We dismiss as moot Womack’s appeal of the district court’s ruling on his motion for return of property because the district court granted the motion. We affirm the district court’s denials of Womack’s motions for a government accounting and for appointment of counsel on the reasoning of the district court.
  
   United States v. Womack,
  
  No. CR-00-27; CA-00-236 (D.S.C. Feb. 11, 2004). 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.
 

   AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART