Court Opinion

ID: 9352359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-05 21:00:36.775201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:01:37.467041
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6726      Doc: 10         Filed: 01/04/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6726

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DWAYNE MITCHELL LITTLEJOHN, a/k/a Manson,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (2:08-cr-00036-MR-WCM-2;
        1:22-cv-00090-MR)

        Submitted: November 15, 2022                                      Decided: January 4, 2023

        Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Dwayne Mitchell Littlejohn, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6726       Doc: 10         Filed: 01/04/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Dwayne Mitchell Littlejohn, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order

        denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Having reviewed the record, we are

        satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition based on

        Littlejohn’s failure to establish a valid reason for his delay in seeking relief. See United

        States v. Lesane, 40 F.4th 191, 196-97 (4th Cir. 2022) (stating standard of review and

        explaining requirements for coram nobis relief). Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny

        Littlejohn’s motion to appoint counsel. 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

                                                      2