Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Watts, 02-6004 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6004 Visitors: 37
Filed: Mar. 18, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6004 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM SYLVESTER WATTS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR- 99-556-PJM, CA-01-1515-PJM) Submitted: February 28, 2002 Decided: March 18, 2002 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublishe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6004 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM SYLVESTER WATTS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR- 99-556-PJM, CA-01-1515-PJM) Submitted: February 28, 2002 Decided: March 18, 2002 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Sylvester Watts, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mythili Raman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Sylvester Watts, Jr., 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 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. Watts, Nos. CR-99-556-PJM; CA-01-1515-PJM (D. Md. Nov. 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
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