Filed: Sep. 07, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7273 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT C. WOODSON, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-96-370) Submitted: August 25, 2006 Decided: September 7, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert C. Woods
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7273 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT C. WOODSON, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-96-370) Submitted: August 25, 2006 Decided: September 7, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert C. Woodso..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7273 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT C. WOODSON, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-96-370) Submitted: August 25, 2006 Decided: September 7, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert C. Woodson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert C. Woodson, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis and his subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Woodson, No. CR-96-370 (E.D. Va. filed May 31, 2005 & entered June 1, 2005; filed June 27, 2005 & entered June 28, 2005). 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 -
