Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Wilson, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing William David Wilson's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing the appeal based on the district court's reasoning. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-05-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-6344

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing William David Wilson's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing the appeal based on the district court's reasoning. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views2 pages

    United States v. Wilson, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing William David Wilson's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing the appeal based on the district court's reasoning. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-6344

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    WILLIAM DAVID WILSON, a/k/a Pudgie,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-94-65-BO, CA-98-551-5-BO)

    Submitted:

    May 13, 1999

    Decided:

    May 19, 1999

    Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    William David Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.
    Robert Edward Skiver,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    William David Wilson seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994
    & Supp. 1998).

    We have reviewed the record and the district

    courts opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny


    a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

    See United States v. Wilson, Nos.

    CR-94-65-BO; CA-98-551-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 1999).

    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.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like