Filed: Jun. 27, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7581 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE WILLIAMS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-92-33-3) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 27, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Williams, Jr., Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7581 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE WILLIAMS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-92-33-3) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 27, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Williams, Jr., Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7581 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE WILLIAMS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-92-33-3) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 27, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 motion for release pending disposition of his motion for reconsid- eration of the denial of his Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion and pending the outcome and possible appeal of a pending and a future habeas corpus proceeding. 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, No. CR-92-33-3 (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2