Stonier v. Sanders

D.C. Circuit

Stonier v. Sanders

358 F. App'x 198

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 14, 2009

DocketNo. 09-5188

StatusPublished

This text of 358 F. App'x 198 (Stonier v. Sanders) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stonier v. Sanders, 358 F. App'x 198 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed April 2 and April 22, 2009, be affirmed. The district court correctly held that appellant must challenge his convictions through a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed in the sentencing court, that his challenges to the legitimacy of that court are frivolous, and that he presented no valid grounds for reconsideration.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed April 2 and April 22, 2009, be affirmed. The district court correctly held that appellant must challenge his convictions through a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed in the sentencing court, that his challenges to the legitimacy of that court are frivolous, and that he presented no valid grounds for reconsideration.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 F. App'x 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stonier-v-sanders-cadc-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack