Filed: Mar. 07, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7214 GARY B. WILLIAMS, Petitioner – Appellant, v. RICHMOND CIRCUIT COURT, Respondent - Appellee. No. 13-7671 GARY B. WILLIAMS, Petitioner – Appellant, v. RICHMOND CIRCUIT COURT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:12-cv-00055-HEH) Submitted: February 19, 2014 Decided: March 7, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7214 GARY B. WILLIAMS, Petitioner – Appellant, v. RICHMOND CIRCUIT COURT, Respondent - Appellee. No. 13-7671 GARY B. WILLIAMS, Petitioner – Appellant, v. RICHMOND CIRCUIT COURT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:12-cv-00055-HEH) Submitted: February 19, 2014 Decided: March 7, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, an..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7214 GARY B. WILLIAMS, Petitioner – Appellant, v. RICHMOND CIRCUIT COURT, Respondent - Appellee. No. 13-7671 GARY B. WILLIAMS, Petitioner – Appellant, v. RICHMOND CIRCUIT COURT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:12-cv-00055-HEH) Submitted: February 19, 2014 Decided: March 7, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary B. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Gary Buterra Williams appeals the district court’s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) motions to reconsider the district court’s prior order remanding his state prosecution to state court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
