Williams v. Richmond Circuit Court

Fourth Circuit

Williams v. Richmond Circuit Court

528 F. App'x 382

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 17, 2013

DocketNo. 13-6297

StatusPublished

This text of 528 F. App'x 382 (Williams v. Richmond Circuit Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. Richmond Circuit Court, 528 F. App'x 382 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished Per Curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gary Buterra Williams appeals the district court’s order remanding his state prosecution to state court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williams v. Richmond Circuit Court, No. 3:12-cv-00055-HEH, 2013 WL 1856237 (E.D.Va. Apr. 29, 2013). We also deny Williams’ motion to vacate this court’s previous order granting Williams leave to proceed on appeal without the prepayment of fees. 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

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

Affirmed by unpublished Per Curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gary Buterra Williams appeals the district court’s order remanding his state prosecution to state court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williams v. Richmond Circuit Court, No. 3:12-cv-00055-HEH, 2013 WL 1856237 (E.D.Va. Apr. 29, 2013). We also deny Williams’ motion to vacate this court’s previous order granting Williams leave to proceed on appeal without the prepayment of fees. 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

528 F. App'x 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-richmond-circuit-court-ca4-2013.