US v. Ivan Walters, No. 13-6712 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6712 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. IVAN WALTERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:08-cr-00385-HMH-1) Submitted: October 17, 2013 Decided: October 21, 2013 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ivan Walters, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ivan Walters appeals the district court s text order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis and the court s subsequent rejection of Walters Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment and his motion to amend the petition. reversible We error. have reviewed the Specifically, we record and discern no find no abuse of discretion in the court s finding that Walters did not meet the requirements Akinsade, for 686 coram F.3d nobis 248, 252 relief. (4th See Cir. United 2012) States (setting standard of review and describing required showing). v. forth Nor do we discern any abuse of discretion in the district court s denial of the Rule 59(e) motion, see Sloas v. CSX Transp., Inc., 616 F.3d 380, 388 petition. F.3d (4th Cir. 2010), or the motion to amend the See Balas v. Huntington Ingalls Indus., Inc., 711 401, affirm the Walters, No. 6:08-cr-00385-HMH-1 (D.S.C. Feb. 1, 2013 & Mar. 5, 2013). We district dispense 409 (4th court s with contentions are Cir. orders. oral 2013). See argument adequately Accordingly, United States because presented in the the we v. facts and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.