Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Watson, 99-6684 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6684 Visitors: 24
Filed: Mar. 01, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6684 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARTHUR MCKINLEY WATSON, a/k/a Red, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. William L. Osteen, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-94-139) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 1, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6684 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARTHUR MCKINLEY WATSON, a/k/a Red, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. William L. Osteen, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-94-139) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 1, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur McKinley Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Arthur McKinley Watson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), to vacate his criminal conviction. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Watson improp- erly invoked the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to collaterally attack a judgment previously entered in a completed and affirmed criminal prosecution. Accordingly, we grant Watson leave to pro- ceed in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Watson, No. CR-94-139 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 27, 1999). 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. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer