UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7494
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LLOYD WILBERFORCE WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 01-7292
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LLOYD WILBERFORCE WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-92-239-WS, CA-99-521-1)
Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 12, 2002
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lloyd Wilberforce Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis
Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Caro-
lina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
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 reconsideration 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.
3