Filed: May 22, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6477 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEVIN LAMONT WALKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:95-cr-00037-RAJ-3; 4:14-cv-00003-RAJ) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 22, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6477 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEVIN LAMONT WALKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:95-cr-00037-RAJ-3; 4:14-cv-00003-RAJ) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 22, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6477
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN LAMONT WALKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson,
District Judge. (4:95-cr-00037-RAJ-3; 4:14-cv-00003-RAJ)
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Lamont Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Lamont Walker appeals the district court’s marginal
order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We
have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. See
Bereano v. United States,
706 F.3d 568, 575 (4th Cir. 2013)
(stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. 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