United States v. Williams

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Williams. Read the opinion of the Court — 10 F.3d 1070
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 27, 1996·No. 95-7581·Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7581

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIE WILLIAMS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-92-33-3)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 27, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion for release pending disposition of his motion for reconsid-

eration of the denial of his Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion and pending

the outcome and possible appeal of a pending and a future habeas

corpus proceeding. We have reviewed the 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. Williams, No. CR-92-33-3 (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 1995). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly 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

United States v. Williams, (4th Cir. 1996).

United States v. Williams (United States v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.