In Re: Shelton v.

Fourth Circuit

In Re: Shelton v.

1 F. App'x 149

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 8, 2001

Docket00-7609

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 F. App'x 149 (In Re: Shelton v.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re: Shelton v., 1 F. App'x 149 (4th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Marcus Duke Shelton petitions this court for a writ of error coram nobis, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (1994), seeking to invalidate his 1988 Virginia conviction for petty larceny. To the extent that Shelton seeks review of a Virginia trial court’s denial of his state petition for a writ of error coram nobis, we do not possess jurisdiction to review that court’s decision. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291-1296 (1994). Furthermore, this court has no jurisdiction under § 1651(a) to alter the judgment of a Virginia trial court. See Sinclair v. Louisiana, 679 F.2d 513, 514-15 (5th Cir.1982). Accordingly, we deny Shelton’s petition. 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.

PETITION DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Marcus Duke Shelton petitions this court for a writ of error coram nobis, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (1994), seeking to invalidate his 1988 Virginia conviction for petty larceny. To the extent that Shelton seeks review of a Virginia trial court’s denial of his state petition for a writ of error coram nobis, we do not possess jurisdiction to review that court’s decision. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291-1296 (1994). Furthermore, this court has no jurisdiction under § 1651(a) to alter the judgment of a Virginia trial court. See Sinclair v. Louisiana, 679 F.2d 513, 514-15 (5th Cir.1982). Accordingly, we deny Shelton’s petition. 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.

PETITION DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 F. App'x 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-shelton-v-ca4-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack