Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Williams, 97-7859 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7859 Visitors: 34
Filed: Oct. 14, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7859 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HAYWOOD WILLIAMS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-80-14-N, CA-97-379-2) Submitted: August 31, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7859 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HAYWOOD WILLIAMS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-80-14-N, CA-97-379-2) Submitted: August 31, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Haywood Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Raymond Alvin Jackson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap- pealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-80-14-N; CA-97-379-2 (E.D. Va. June 5, Oct. 8 & Nov. 13, 1997). We deny Williams’ mo- tions for appointment of counsel and for oral argument. Further, we deny Williams’ motion to supplement the record as moot as this Court has already accepted the supplemental materials. 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. 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