Filed: Aug. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7063 BARKLEY GARDNER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TROY WILLIAMSON; U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:95-cr-00041-H-8; 5:08-CV-02050-h) Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Aff
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7063 BARKLEY GARDNER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TROY WILLIAMSON; U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:95-cr-00041-H-8; 5:08-CV-02050-h) Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7063 BARKLEY GARDNER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TROY WILLIAMSON; U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:95-cr-00041-H-8; 5:08-CV-02050-h) Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barkley Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Barkley Gardner appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gardner v. Williamson, Nos. 4:95-cr-00041-H-8; 5:08-cv-02050-H (E.D.N.C., Oct. 13, 2011; June 8, 2012). 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
