Filed: Nov. 13, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6751 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SHIHEEN RICHARDSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-17, CA-96-1013-7) Submitted: October 20, 2000 Decided: November 13, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6751 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SHIHEEN RICHARDSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-17, CA-96-1013-7) Submitted: October 20, 2000 Decided: November 13, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. S..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6751 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SHIHEEN RICHARDSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-17, CA-96-1013-7) Submitted: October 20, 2000 Decided: November 13, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shiheen Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OF- FICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Shiheen Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of an underlying order denying Richardson’s 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion. 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 rea- soning of the district court. See United States v. Richardson, Nos. CR-95-17; CA-96-1013-7 (W.D. Va. May 16, 2000). 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