Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Arthur WALTON, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Arthur Walton, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-04
Citations: 539 F. App'x 153
Docket Number: Nos. 13-6820, 13-6821
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Arthur WALTON, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Arthur Walton, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 539
Pages: 153–153

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Arthur WALTON, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Arthur Walton, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 13-6820, 13-6821.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 29, 2013.
Decided: Sept. 4, 2013.
Eric Arthur Walton, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Eric Arthur Walton appeals the district court's order denying his requests for a writ of error coram nobis and correction of his criminal judgment pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 36. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Walton-did not meet the requirements for coram nobis relief. See United States v. Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir.2012) (describing required showing). Nor did he establish a clerical error in the court's criminal judgment. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Walton, Nos. 1:85-cr-00033-IMK-1; 1:84-cr-00100-IMK-JES-1 (N.D.W.Va. May 9, 2013). We deny Walton's motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
On appeal, Walton does not challenge the court's rejection of his claim that he was entitled to coram nobis relief because his statute of conviction was unconstitutionally vague. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting review to issues raised in informal brief).