Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    United States v. Williams, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes two appeals by Lloyd Wilberforce Williams of orders by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and his motion for reconsideration. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. As such, the appeals were dismissed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its orders denying Williams' § 2255 motion and motion for reconsideration.

    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. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views3 pages
    This document summarizes two appeals by Lloyd Wilberforce Williams of orders by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and his motion for reconsideration. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. As such, the appeals were dismissed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its orders denying Williams' § 2255 motion and motion for reconsideration.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-02-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-7494

    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 summarizes two appeals by Lloyd Wilberforce Williams of orders by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and his motion for reconsideration. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. As such, the appeals were dismissed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its orders denying Williams' § 2255 motion and motion for reconsideration.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views3 pages

    United States v. Williams, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes two appeals by Lloyd Wilberforce Williams of orders by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and his motion for reconsideration. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. As such, the appeals were dismissed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its orders denying Williams' § 2255 motion and motion for reconsideration.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 00-7494

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    LLOYD WILBERFORCE WILLIAMS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    No. 01-7292

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    LLOYD WILBERFORCE WILLIAMS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CR-92-239-WS, CA-99-521-1)

    Submitted:

    January 31, 2002

    Decided:

    February 12, 2002

    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Lloyd Wilberforce Williams, Appellant Pro Se.


    Michael Francis
    Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Lloyd

    Wilberforce

    Williams

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255


    (West Supp. 2001) and motion for reconsideration and for leave to
    amend the pleadings.

    We have reviewed the record and the district

    courts opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate


    judge and order denying the motion for reconsideration and for
    leave

    to

    amend

    the

    pleadings

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    error.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the


    appeals on the reasoning of the district court.

    United States v.

    Williams, Nos. CR-92-239-WS; CA-99-521-1 (M.D.N.C. June 26, 2000;


    July 20, 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.

    DISMISSED

    We note that the magistrate judge filed his report and


    recommendation on the same day our decision issued in Harris v.
    Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2000). In Harris, we held that
    28 U.S.C.A. 2244(d) (West Supp. 2001) is a statute of limitation
    and is subject to equitable tolling in limited circumstances.
    Harris, 209 F.3d at 329-30. Because the magistrate judge applied
    the proper equitable tolling principles even without the benefit of
    our decision in Harris, we find there is no error.
    3

    You might also like