Filed: May 22, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6122 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WILLIAM TERRENCE CROSS, a/k/a Red, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:03-cr-00010-RBS-1) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 22, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6122 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WILLIAM TERRENCE CROSS, a/k/a Red, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:03-cr-00010-RBS-1) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 22, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cur..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6122 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WILLIAM TERRENCE CROSS, a/k/a Red, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:03-cr-00010-RBS-1) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 22, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Terrence Cross, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Kosky, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Cross appeals the district court’s margin order denying his motion for writ of error coram nobis. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Cross, No. 2:03-cr-00010-RBS-1 (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 5 & entered Jan. 8, 2015). 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 2
