Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Matthews, 00-7777 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7777 Visitors: 11
Filed: Feb. 15, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7777 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BARRY LEWIS MATTHEWS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-96-1007-7) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barry Lewis Matthews, Appellant
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7777 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BARRY LEWIS MATTHEWS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-96-1007-7) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barry Lewis Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Barry Lewis Matthews seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion challenging the district court’s prior denial of his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error in its deter- mination that Matthews’ motion for reconsideration was untimely under Rule 60(b). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Matthews, No. CA-96-1007-07 (W.D. Va. Nov. 21, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer