U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2002

United States v. Williams

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided February 12, 2002 · Widener, Niemeyer, King

26 F. App'x 364

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Lloyd Wilberforce Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) and motion for reconsideration and for leave to amend the pleadings. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and order denying the motion for reconsid *365 eration and for leave to amend the pleadings and find no reversible'error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-92-239-WS; CA-99-521-1 (M.D.N.C. June 26, 2000; July 20, 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.

DISMISSED.

We note that the magistrate judge filed his report and recommendation on the same day our decision issued in Harris v. Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2000). In Harris, we held that 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West Supp. 2001) is a statute of limitation and is subject to equitable tolling in limited circumstances. Harris, 209 F.3d at 329-30. Because the magistrate judge applied the proper equitable tolling principles even without the benefit of our decision in Harris, we find there is no error.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.