Filed: Oct. 09, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7233 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN LEE WILLIAMS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-97-182, CA-00-654-3) Submitted: September 18, 2001 Decided: October 9, 2001 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7233 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN LEE WILLIAMS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-97-182, CA-00-654-3) Submitted: September 18, 2001 Decided: October 9, 2001 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7233 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN LEE WILLIAMS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-97-182, CA-00-654-3) Submitted: September 18, 2001 Decided: October 9, 2001 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Lee Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Lee Williams, Jr., appeals the district court’s order de- nying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). 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 reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-97-182; CA- 00-654-3 (W.D.N.C. June 26, 2001). 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