Filed: Aug. 25, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6748 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT RUSSELL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Drip, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-95-45) Submitted: August 7, 2000 Decided: August 25, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6748 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT RUSSELL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Drip, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-95-45) Submitted: August 7, 2000 Decided: August 25, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curia..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6748
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT RUSSELL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Drip,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.
(CR-95-45)
Submitted: August 7, 2000 Decided: August 25, 2000
Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Russell Williams, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert Williams appeals the district court’s order denying his
motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). Although the
district court entered judgment on the merits in favor of the
Government, we conclude that the motion was not brought within the
one-year period specified by § 2255 and therefore was untimely.
See United States v. Torres,
211 F.3d 836, 837 (4th Cir. 2000)
(holding that the one-year period commences with this court’s
mandate when no petition for certiorari is filed). Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s denial of post-conviction relief on the
ground that the motion was time-barred. 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