United States v. McDaniel

Fourth Circuit

United States v. McDaniel

89 F. App'x 825

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. McDaniel. Read the opinion of the Court — 182 F. App'x 176 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 25, 2004·No. 03-7629·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Eugene McDaniel appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider a prior order denying his motion for specific performance of a plea agreement. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. McDaniel, Nos. CR-94-111; CA-00-90-3MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 16, 2003). 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

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Eugene McDaniel appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider a prior order denying his motion for specific performance of a plea agreement. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. McDaniel, Nos. CR-94-111; CA-00-90-3MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 16, 2003). 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

United States v. McDaniel, 89 F. App'x 825 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

89 F. App'x 825 (United States v. McDaniel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.