Head v. Williamson

Fourth Circuit

Head v. Williamson

127 F. App'x 99

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided April 8, 2005·No. 04-7857·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Marion Head, Jr., appeals the order of the magistrate judge denying Head’s “Motion for Rehearing and etc. Relief and Release” and his motion for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and conclude that there was no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. See Head v. Williamson, No. CA-03-63 (S.D.W. Va. filed Oct. 21, 2004; entered Oct. 22, 2004). 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. The motion for judgment of acquittal and for “10 zillion dollars” is denied.

AFFIRMED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Marion Head, Jr., appeals the order of the magistrate judge denying Head’s “Motion for Rehearing and etc. Relief and Release” and his motion for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and conclude that there was no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. See Head v. Williamson, No. CA-03-63 (S.D.W. Va. filed Oct. 21, 2004; entered Oct. 22, 2004). 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. The motion for judgment of acquittal and for “10 zillion dollars” is denied.

AFFIRMED

Head v. Williamson, 127 F. App'x 99 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

127 F. App'x 99 (Head v. Williamson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.