Filed: Jan. 27, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7196 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM HENRY REID, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-748) Submitted: Janury 15, 2004 Decided: January 27, 2004 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7196 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM HENRY REID, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-748) Submitted: Janury 15, 2004 Decided: January 27, 2004 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7196
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM HENRY REID,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-97-748)
Submitted: Janury 15, 2004 Decided: January 27, 2004
Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Henry Reid, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William Henry Reid, Jr., appeals from the denial of his
motions for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
59(e) and 60(b). His motions sought to void his criminal judgment
and specifically asserted that he did not invoke the provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). Because the rules of civil procedure have
no applicability in a criminal case, see United States v. Mosavi,
138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1998), we affirm the district
court’s orders denying Reid’s motions. 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 -