United States v. Dogan

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Dogan

474 F. App'x 276

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 26, 2012

DocketNo. 12-6348

StatusPublished

This text of 474 F. App'x 276 (United States v. Dogan) 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

United States v. Dogan, 474 F. App'x 276 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles Dogan, Jr., appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his petition for writ of mandamus. Dogan also appeals the denial of his motion to reconsider the order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dogan v. United States, No. 2:96-cr-00066-1, 2011 WL 6293923 (S.D.W.Va. Dec. 16, 2011) & 2012 WL 256522 (Jan. 27, 2012). We deny Dogan’s motion to inspect all recorded statements of court hearings. 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.

AFFIRMED.

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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles Dogan, Jr., appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his petition for writ of mandamus. Dogan also appeals the denial of his motion to reconsider the order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dogan v. United States, No. 2:96-cr-00066-1, 2011 WL 6293923 (S.D.W.Va. Dec. 16, 2011) & 2012 WL 256522 (Jan. 27, 2012). We deny Dogan’s motion to inspect all recorded statements of court hearings. 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.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 F. App'x 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-dogan-ca4-2012.