Filed: Oct. 21, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7054 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANIF CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-93-10, CA-96-916-R) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 21, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anif Christoph
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7054 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANIF CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-93-10, CA-96-916-R) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 21, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anif Christophe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7054 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANIF CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-93-10, CA-96-916-R) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 21, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anif Christopher Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Ruth Elizabeth Plagenhoef, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Anif Christopher Williams 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 cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-93-10; CA-96-916-R (W.D. Va. June 1, 1998). 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