Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Williams, 02-6890 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6890 Visitors: 33
Filed: Aug. 22, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6890 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TARIQ WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-39, CA-02-187) Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tariq
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6890 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TARIQ WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-39, CA-02-187) Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tariq Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tariq Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-97-39, CA-02-187 (S.D.W. Va. May 10, 2002). 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. 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