Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis WILLIAMS, a/k/a Devon, a/k/a George Washington Barker, a/k/a Nushwill St. Albans Williams, a/k/a Dennis Leonard, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis Williams, a/k/a Devon, a/k/a George Washington Barker, a/k/a Nushwill St. Albans Williams, a/k/a Dennis Leonard, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-10-23
Citations: 21 F. App'x 144
Docket Number: Nos. 01-6428, 01-6825
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis WILLIAMS, a/k/a Devon, a/k/a George Washington Barker, a/k/a Nushwill St. Albans Williams, a/k/a Dennis Leonard, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis Williams, a/k/a Devon, a/k/a George Washington Barker, a/k/a Nushwill St. Albans Williams, a/k/a Dennis Leonard, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 21
Pages: 144–145

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis WILLIAMS, a/k/a Devon, a/k/a George Washington Barker, a/k/a Nushwill St. Albans Williams, a/k/a Dennis Leonard, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis Williams, a/k/a Devon, a/k/a George Washington Barker, a/k/a Nushwill St. Albans Williams, a/k/a Dennis Leonard, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 01-6428, 01-6825.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 19, 2001.
Decided Oct. 23, 2001.
Dennis Williams, pro se. Philip S. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Richard Charles Kay, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for appellee.
Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Dennis Williams appeals from the district court's order construing his motion to amend as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001) motion and dismissing it as successive, and two subsequent orders, the first denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 motion for reconsideration and motion to amend pleadings, and the second denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 59 motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-89-104-HAR; CA-01-217-CCB, CA-92-2917-HAR (D. Md. Feb. 6, Apr. 13 & Apr. 30, 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.
AFFIRMED.