US v. Timothy Eddington, No. 13-7711 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7711 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TIMOTHY WAYNE EDDINGTON, Defendant - Appellant. No. 13-7762 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TIMOTHY WAYNE EDDINGTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:07-cr-01149-CMC-1) Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. December 20, 2013 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Wayne Eddington, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Claude Jendron, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Wayne Eddington was convicted in a 2008 jury trial of conspiracy to commit bank robbery and related charges.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 F. App x 258 (4th Cir. 2011) (Nos. 08-4798/4799). His 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion to vacate has also been rejected. See United States v. Eddington, 520 F. App x 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. reversible error. We have reviewed the record and find no 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. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.