Case ID: f-appx_40/html/0777-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Namond Earl WILLIAMS, a/k/a Tony Smith, a/k/a Namond Brewington, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-6114.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 20, 2002.
    Decided July 10, 2002.
    Namond Earl Williams, Pro Se. Andrea L. Smith, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Namond Earl Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion challenging the district court’s prior denial of his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001), and the district court’s order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion requesting reconsideration of the court’s denial of the Rule 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and find that the Rule 60(b) motion, filed nearly four years after the denial of the underlying § 2255 motion, is untimely. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We also find that Williams’ Rule 59(e) motion does not establish an appropriate ground for reconsideration. See Collison v. International Chem. Workers Union, Local 217, 34 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir.1994) (quoting Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir.1993)). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral arguments because the facts and legal contentions in the materials before the court are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.