Filed: Oct. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6812 CHARLES WALKER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-00282-TDS-JLW) Submitted: October 15, 2019 Decided: October 18, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6812 CHARLES WALKER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-00282-TDS-JLW) Submitted: October 15, 2019 Decided: October 18, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6812 CHARLES WALKER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-00282-TDS-JLW) Submitted: October 15, 2019 Decided: October 18, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Walker appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying Walker’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Walker v. United States, No. 1:19-cv-00282-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C. May 7, 2019). 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 2
