Filed: Mar. 05, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7962 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEMAL WALTER WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (7:94-cr-00210-HMH; 7:01-cv-03549) Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: March 5, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jema
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7962 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEMAL WALTER WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (7:94-cr-00210-HMH; 7:01-cv-03549) Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: March 5, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jemal..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7962
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JEMAL WALTER WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (7:94-cr-00210-HMH; 7:01-cv-03549)
Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: March 5, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jemal Walter Williams, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jemal Walter Williams appeals from the district court's
order denying relief on his motion for reconsideration filed
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Our review of the record
discloses that this appeal is without merit. Williams has not
raised any meritorious issues nor presented any evidence not
previously considered by the district court as to its dismissal of
Williams’ 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely. We therefore
find that the district court's denial of his motion for
reconsideration was not an abuse of discretion. United States v.
Winestock,
340 F.3d 200, 203 (4th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s order. 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 -