Filed: Jan. 25, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7288 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff- Appellee, versus JIMMY LEE WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CR-96-41-F, CA-99-58-F) Submitted: January 18, 2001 Decided: January 25, 2001 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7288 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff- Appellee, versus JIMMY LEE WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CR-96-41-F, CA-99-58-F) Submitted: January 18, 2001 Decided: January 25, 2001 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curia..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7288 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff- Appellee, versus JIMMY LEE WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CR-96-41-F, CA-99-58-F) Submitted: January 18, 2001 Decided: January 25, 2001 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se. David J. Cortes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jimmy Lee Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-96-41-F; CA-99-58-F (E.D.N.C. Aug. 29, 2000). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2