Filed: Jan. 04, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7198 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NAMOND EARL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Namond Brewington, a/k/a Tony Smith, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:90-cr-00135-JFM-4) Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 4, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Aff
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7198 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NAMOND EARL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Namond Brewington, a/k/a Tony Smith, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:90-cr-00135-JFM-4) Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 4, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7198 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NAMOND EARL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Namond Brewington, a/k/a Tony Smith, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:90-cr-00135-JFM-4) Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 4, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Namond Earl Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Namond Earl Williams appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for transcripts and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Williams, No. 1:90-cr-00135-JFM-4 (D. Md. July 26 & Aug. 12, 2010). 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
