US v. William Cro

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:03-cr-00010-RBS-1,2:06-cv-00457-RBS. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999239813]. Mailed to: William Cross. [13-6274]

Appeal: 13-6274

Doc: 18

Filed: 11/14/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Tayman,
Assistant
United
States
Virginia, for Appellee.

Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro
Attorney,
Newport
News,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6274

Doc: 18

Filed: 11/14/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
William
tampering
Cross

with

was

sentence.

a

Cross

seeks

witness

sentenced

in

to

and

appeal

his

retaliation

2003

and

conviction

against

received

a

a

for

witness.

fourteen-year

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).
affirmed the sentence imposed at resentencing.

The court

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(unpublished).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

criminal

of

the

judgment,

specifically

challenging

a

pre-trial order denying Cross’s motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction.
criminal

judgment,

untimely.
legal
before

However, because we have previously affirmed this
dismiss

the

appeal

as

duplicative

and

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
the

we

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED

2