Narrative Opinion Summary
Cary Junior Williams appeals the denial of his motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35, which challenged the legality of the restitution portion of his sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, comprising Judges Russell, Murnaghan, and Williams, found that Williams had waived this issue since he did not raise it in his direct appeal or in two prior Rule 35 motions, citing Stone v. Powell. Consequently, the district court's denial of his motion was deemed proper. Williams also attempted to introduce several new issues on appeal; however, these were not properly before the Court, referencing Singleton v. Wulff. The Court declined to appoint counsel for Williams and affirmed the district court’s order without oral argument, stating that the case facts and legal matters were adequately presented in the existing documentation. The prior version of Rule 35 was applicable as the offense occurred in 1983.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Prior Rule Versionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the prior version of Rule 35 because the offense occurred in 1983.
Reasoning: The prior version of Rule 35 was applicable as the offense occurred in 1983.
Appointment of Counsel in Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court declined to appoint counsel for the appellant, citing that the case facts and legal matters were sufficiently presented in the existing documentation.
Reasoning: The Court declined to appoint counsel for Williams and affirmed the district court’s order without oral argument, stating that the case facts and legal matters were adequately presented in the existing documentation.
Introduction of New Issues on Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's attempt to introduce new issues on appeal was denied because these issues were not properly before the court.
Reasoning: Williams also attempted to introduce several new issues on appeal; however, these were not properly before the Court, referencing Singleton v. Wulff.
Waiver of Legal Issuessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the appellant waived his right to challenge the restitution portion of his sentence because he did not raise the issue in his direct appeal or in previous Rule 35 motions.
Reasoning: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, comprising Judges Russell, Murnaghan, and Williams, found that Williams had waived this issue since he did not raise it in his direct appeal or in two prior Rule 35 motions, citing Stone v. Powell.