United States v. William Cross , 546 F. App'x 224 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-6274
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    WILLIAM TERRENCE CROSS, a/k/a Red,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk.    Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
    District Judge. (2:03-cr-00010-RBS-1; 2:06-cv-00457-RBS)
    Submitted:   November 7, 2013             Decided:   November 14, 2013
    Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William Terrence Cross, Appellant         Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro
    Tayman,   Assistant  United States        Attorney, Newport News,
    Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    William      Cross      seeks   to        appeal   his       conviction       for
    tampering      with    a   witness      and   retaliation        against          a    witness.
    Cross    was    sentenced        in    2003       and    received      a    fourteen-year
    sentence.      This court summarily affirmed Cross’s convictions and
    remanded for resentencing after the Government cross-appealed.
    United States v. Cross, 
    371 F.3d 176
    (4th Cir. 2004).                                 The court
    affirmed the sentence imposed at resentencing.                         United States v.
    Cross, No. 04-5030, 
    2005 WL 3452041
    (4th Cir. Dec. 16, 2005)
    (unpublished).         In January 2013, Cross filed another notice of
    appeal   of    the     criminal       judgment,         specifically        challenging       a
    pre-trial order denying Cross’s motion to dismiss for lack of
    jurisdiction.         However, because we have previously affirmed this
    criminal    judgment,       we     dismiss    the       appeal   as    duplicative          and
    untimely.      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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-6274

Citation Numbers: 546 F. App'x 224

Judges: Keenan, Per Curiam, Thacker, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 11/14/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/31/2023