United States of America v. Namond Earl Williams, a/k/a Tony Smith, a/k/a Namond Brewington

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6114
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NAMOND EARL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Tony Smith, a/k/a
Namond Brewington,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR-
90-135, CA-97-1256-JFM)
Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: July 10, 2002
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Namond Earl Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Namond Earl Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion challenging the
district court’s prior denial of his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2001), and the district court’s order denying
his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion requesting reconsideration of the
court’s denial of the Rule 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the
record and find that the Rule 60(b) motion, filed nearly four years
after the denial of the underlying § 2255 motion, is untimely. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We also find that Williams’ Rule 59(e)
motion does not establish an appropriate ground for
reconsideration. See Collision v. International Chem. Workers
Union, Local 217, 34 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 1994) (quoting
Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993)).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral arguments because the facts and
legal contentions in the materials before the court are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --