Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Williams, 00-7293 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7293 Visitors: 40
Filed: Mar. 02, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7293 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus REGINALD R. WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-95-332-A, CA-98-1720-A) Submitted: February 20, 2001 Decided: March 2, 2001 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished pe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7293 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus REGINALD R. WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-95-332-A, CA-98-1720-A) Submitted: February 20, 2001 Decided: March 2, 2001 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald R. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Morris Rudolph Parker, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Reginald R. 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-95-332-A; CA-98-1720-A (E.D. Va. filed July 17, 2000; entered July 20, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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