Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Williams v. Nuth, 97-6536 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6536 Visitors: 48
Filed: Oct. 08, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6536 FLOYD GLENN WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EUGENE NUTH; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 96-2278-DKC) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6536 FLOYD GLENN WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EUGENE NUTH; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 96-2278-DKC) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Floyd Glenn Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Tarra R. DeShields-Minnis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Balti- more, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997), and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dis- miss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Williams v. Nuth, No. CA-96-2278-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 5 & 24, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer