Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher K. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-03-11
Citations: 30 F. App'x 261
Docket Number: No. 01-7719
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher K. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 30
Pages: 261–262

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher K. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-7719.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2002.
Decided March 11, 2002.
Christopher K. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Christopher K. Williams appeals the district court's orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-98-34; CA-00-38-4 (E.D. Va. Aug. 7, 2001; Sept. 10, 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.
Although we disagree with the district court's conclusion that the motion for reconsideration was not timely filed, Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), 52(b), the district court alternately concluded, and we agree, that the motion was meritless.