Filed: May 07, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6191 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HAYWOOD WILLIAMS, JR., Defendant -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 District Judge. (CR-80-14) Submitted: April 23, 1996 Decided: May 7, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6191 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HAYWOOD WILLIAMS, JR., Defendant -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 District Judge. (CR-80-14) Submitted: April 23, 1996 Decided: May 7, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6191 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HAYWOOD WILLIAMS, JR., Defendant -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 District Judge. (CR-80-14) Submitted: April 23, 1996 Decided: May 7, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 appeals from the district court's orders denying his motions to correct the record and for reconsideration. 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-80-14 (E.D. Va. Dec. 15, 1995 & Jan. 9, 1996). 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 2
