United States v. Mills

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Mills

22 F. App'x 189

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Mills. Read the opinion of the Court — 82 F. App'x 287 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided November 21, 2001·No. 01-7595·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Stephen James Mills appeals from the district court’s order denying his Rule 60(b)(4) motion. We have reviewed the *190 record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Mills, No. CR-97-815 (D.S.C. filed Aug. 27, 2001; entered Aug. 28, 2001). 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.

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

PER CURIAM.

Stephen James Mills appeals from the district court’s order denying his Rule 60(b)(4) motion. We have reviewed the *190 record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Mills, No. CR-97-815 (D.S.C. filed Aug. 27, 2001; entered Aug. 28, 2001). 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.

United States v. Mills, 22 F. App'x 189 (4th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

22 F. App'x 189 (United States v. Mills) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.