Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Walters, 01-7203 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7203 Visitors: 3
Filed: Nov. 13, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7203 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROHAN ALEXANDER WALTERS, a/k/a Dave, a/k/a Rohan Williams, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-157, CA-00-878-2) Submitted: October 10, 2001 Decided: November 13, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affir
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7203 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROHAN ALEXANDER WALTERS, a/k/a Dave, a/k/a Rohan Williams, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-157, CA-00-878-2) Submitted: October 10, 2001 Decided: November 13, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rohan Alexander Walters, Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rohan Alexander Walters seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Walters, Nos. CR-97-157; CA-00-878-2 (S.D.W. Va. June 5, 2001). 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
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