Filed: Nov. 16, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6628 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WAYNE ACHILLE MCALLISTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-01-57-MU) Submitted: September 28, 2005 Decided: November 16, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Ac
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6628 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WAYNE ACHILLE MCALLISTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-01-57-MU) Submitted: September 28, 2005 Decided: November 16, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Ach..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6628 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WAYNE ACHILLE MCALLISTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-01-57-MU) Submitted: September 28, 2005 Decided: November 16, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Achille McAllister, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Wayne Achille McAllister appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition for writ of error audita querela under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. McAllister, No. CR-01-57-MU (W.D.N.C. Apr. 11, 2005). 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. AFFIRMED - 2 -
