Case ID: f-appx_214/html/0271-01.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. Walter Lee BRAXTON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-7615.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 18, 2007.
    Decided: Jan. 24, 2007.
    Walter Lee Braxton, Appellant Pro Se. William Frederick Gould, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Walter Lee Braxton appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel to pursue a Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Braxton, No. 3:02-cr-00019 (WJD.Va. Aug. 11, 2006). To the extent that Braxton seeks to raise new claims in his informal brief, these claims are not properly before this court. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993). 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.