Filed: Mar. 19, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6002 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GARFIELD ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CR- 91-456-WMN, CA-95-1914-WMN) Submitted: February 20, 1996 Decided: March 19, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Garf
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6002 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GARFIELD ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CR- 91-456-WMN, CA-95-1914-WMN) Submitted: February 20, 1996 Decided: March 19, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Garfi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6002 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GARFIELD ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CR- 91-456-WMN, CA-95-1914-WMN) Submitted: February 20, 1996 Decided: March 19, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Garfield Anthony Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Douglas Bennett, Christine Manuelian, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-91-456-WMN; CA-95-1914-WMN (D. Md. Nov 29, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
