United States of America v. Ivan Walters

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6712
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IVAN WALTERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:08-cr-00385-HMH-1)
Submitted: October 17, 2013 Decided: October 21, 2013
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ivan Walters, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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

-- 2 of 2 --