Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    United States v. Williams, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Jemal Walter Williams appealed the district court's denial of his motion to modify his term of imprisonment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court affirmed the district court's ruling, agreeing with the lower court's reasoning that Williams' motion should be denied. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Williams, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Jemal Walter Williams appealed the district court's denial of his motion to modify his term of imprisonment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court affirmed the district court's ruling, agreeing with the lower court's reasoning that Williams' motion should be denied. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-05-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-6035

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Jemal Walter Williams appealed the district court's denial of his motion to modify his term of imprisonment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court affirmed the district court's ruling, agreeing with the lower court's reasoning that Williams' motion should be denied. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Williams, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Jemal Walter Williams appealed the district court's denial of his motion to modify his term of imprisonment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court affirmed the district court's ruling, agreeing with the lower court's reasoning that Williams' motion should be denied. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately explained 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. 06-6035

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JEMAL WALTER WILLIAMS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (CR-94-210-7)

    Submitted:

    April 27, 2006

    Decided: May 5, 2006

    Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jemal Walter Williams, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens,


    Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Jemal Walter Williams appeals the district courts order
    denying his motion to modify his term of imprisonment.
    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
    affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

    We have

    Accordingly, we

    See United States

    v. Williams, No. CR-94-210-7 (D.S.C. Dec. 22, 2005).

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like