Filed: Oct. 19, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6633 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. REGINALD MIMMS, a/k/a Gerald King, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:99-cr-00048-JCT) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald Mimms
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6633 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. REGINALD MIMMS, a/k/a Gerald King, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:99-cr-00048-JCT) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald Mimms,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6633 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. REGINALD MIMMS, a/k/a Gerald King, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:99-cr-00048-JCT) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald Mimms, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Joseph William Hooge Mott, Assistant United States Attorneys, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Reginald Mimms appeals the district court's order denying his motion for a writ of audita querela, pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Mimms’ motion for a transcript at Government expense and affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Mimms, No. 7:99-cr-00048-JCT (W.D. Va. March 17, 2009). 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
