United States v. Featherstun
This text of United States v. Featherstun (United States v. Featherstun) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8388
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL ROBERT FEATHERSTUN, a/k/a Big Country, a/k/a Mike,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:05-cr-00021-JCC-3)
Submitted: May 18, 2009 Decided: May 20, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Robert Featherstun, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Michael Featherstun appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for an extension of time in which to file a
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. Our review of the
record discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.
We do so without prejudice to Featherstun’s right to file an
initial § 2255 motion and an opportunity to establish a basis
for equitable tolling. We express no opinion, however, on his
ability to do so. 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Featherstun, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-featherstun-ca4-2009.