Filed: Jul. 27, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6592 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEITH DARNELL WILSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-92-426-A, CA-97-1404-AM) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 27, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith D
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6592 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEITH DARNELL WILSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-92-426-A, CA-97-1404-AM) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 27, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Da..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6592 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEITH DARNELL WILSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-92-426-A, CA-97-1404-AM) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 27, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Darnell Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. H. Bryan Cunningham, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Keith Darnell Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reinstatement and reconsideration of a final order denying his motion for reconsideration of a previous order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). 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. See United States v. Wilson, Nos. CR-92- 426-A; CA-97-1404-AM (E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 1999). 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. DISMISSED 2