Filed: Aug. 27, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6732 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NATTANER PHILLIPS, a/k/a Nathaniel Phillips, a/k/a Nate, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:09-cr-00031-AWA-FBS-5) Submitted: August 22, 2013 Decided: August 27, 2013 Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6732 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NATTANER PHILLIPS, a/k/a Nathaniel Phillips, a/k/a Nate, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:09-cr-00031-AWA-FBS-5) Submitted: August 22, 2013 Decided: August 27, 2013 Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6732
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NATTANER PHILLIPS, a/k/a Nathaniel Phillips, a/k/a Nate,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District
Judge. (2:09-cr-00031-AWA-FBS-5)
Submitted: August 22, 2013 Decided: August 27, 2013
Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nattaner Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nattaner Phillips appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his motion to appoint counsel to aid in the
preparation of a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion to
set aside, vacate, or correct his federal sentence. We have
reviewed the record and conclude the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying the requested relief.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. * See United
States v. Phillips, No. 2:09-cr-00031-AWA-FBS-5 (E.D. Va. filed
Apr. 8, 2013 & entered Apr. 9, 2013). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
We note that the district court did not explicitly
construe Phillips’ motion to appoint counsel as a 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 motion or provide notice of its intent to so construe the
motion. See Castro v. United States,
540 U.S. 375, 377 (2003).
Accordingly, Phillips remains free to file a § 2255 motion in
the district court.
2