Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Williams, 98-6568 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6568 Visitors: 103
Filed: Oct. 26, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6568 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANDRE WILLIAMS, a/k/a Andre Curry, a/k/a Drey, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-48, CA-97-137) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 26, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6568 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANDRE WILLIAMS, a/k/a Andre Curry, a/k/a Drey, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-48, CA-97-137) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 26, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andre Williams, Appellant Pro Se. William David Wilmoth, United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia; Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Andre Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order de- nying 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 appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-93-48; CA-97-137 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 30, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials 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