Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ivan WALTERS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-21
Citations: 543 F. App'x 333
Docket Number: No. 13-6712
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ivan WALTERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 543
Pages: 333–333

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ivan WALTERS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-6712.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 17, 2013.
Decided: Oct. 21, 2013.
Ivan Walters, Appellant pro se. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ivan Walters appeals the district court's text order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis and the court's subsequent rejection of Walters' Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment and his motion to amend the petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Specifically, we discern no abuse of discretion in the court's finding that Walters did not meet the requirements for coram nobis relief. See United States v. Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir.2012) (setting forth standard of review and describing required showing). Nor do we discern any abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of the Rule 59(e) motion, see Sloas v. CSX Transp., Inc., 616 F.3d 380, 388 (4th Cir.2010), or the motion to amend the petition. See Balas v. Huntington Ingalls Indus., Inc., 711 F.3d 401, 409 (4th Cir.2013). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders. See United States v. Walters, No. 6:08-cr-00385-HMH-1 (D.S.C. Feb. 1, 2013 & Mar. 5, 2013). We 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.