Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    In Re: Williams V., 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Rodney Williams filed a petition for a writ of error claiming the appellate court opinion from his 2003 direct appeal relied on perjured statements. The court denied the petition, as Williams does not have a right to the relief sought under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While allowing Williams to proceed in forma pauperis, the court denied the writ of error without oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were clear based on the filed materials.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    In Re: Williams V., 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Rodney Williams filed a petition for a writ of error claiming the appellate court opinion from his 2003 direct appeal relied on perjured statements. The court denied the petition, as Williams does not have a right to the relief sought under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While allowing Williams to proceed in forma pauperis, the court denied the writ of error without oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were clear based on the filed materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-06-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-6844

    Original Title

    In Re: Williams v., 4th Cir. (2006)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Rodney Williams filed a petition for a writ of error claiming the appellate court opinion from his 2003 direct appeal relied on perjured statements. The court denied the petition, as Williams does not have a right to the relief sought under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While allowing Williams to proceed in forma pauperis, the court denied the writ of error without oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were clear based on the filed materials.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Williams V., 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Rodney Williams filed a petition for a writ of error claiming the appellate court opinion from his 2003 direct appeal relied on perjured statements. The court denied the petition, as Williams does not have a right to the relief sought under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While allowing Williams to proceed in forma pauperis, the court denied the writ of error without oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were clear based on the filed 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. 06-6844

    In Re:

    RODNEY H. WILLIAMS,

    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Error


    (2:01-cr-00231-RAJ)

    Submitted: June 15, 2006

    Decided: June 21, 2006

    Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Rodney H. Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Rodney H. Williams petitions for a writ of error pursuant
    to 28 U.S.C. 1651(a) (2000) and Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules
    of Civil Procedure.

    Williams claims the July 29, 2003, opinion

    issued in his direct appeal relied upon perjurous statements in the


    record.

    Because Williams does not have a right to the relief

    sought, we deny relief.

    Accordingly, although we grant leave to

    proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of error.


    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.

    PETITION DENIED

    - 2 -

    You might also like