Williams v. United States

Fourth Circuit

Williams v. United States

36 F. App'x 538

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Williams v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 242 F.3d 169 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 17, 2002·No. 02-6022·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Vaden Lee Williams appeals the district court’s order denying his petition to modify the terms of his supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(1) (West 2000). 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-91-70 (E.D.Va. Nov. 21, 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.

Vaden Lee Williams appeals the district court’s order denying his petition to modify the terms of his supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(1) (West 2000). 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-91-70 (E.D.Va. Nov. 21, 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.

Williams v. United States, 36 F. App'x 538 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

36 F. App'x 538 (Williams v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related