United States v. Penland

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Penland

406 F. App'x 816

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Penland. Read the opinion of the Court — 370 F. App'x 381 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 4, 2011·No. No. 10-7069·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mary Penland appeals the district court’s text order denying her pro se motion to vacate a plea agreement, which the district court further construed as a challenge to a forfeiture order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Penland, No. 7:05-cr-00710-HFF-1 (D.S.C. July 1, 2010). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Mary Penland appeals the district court’s text order denying her pro se motion to vacate a plea agreement, which the district court further construed as a challenge to a forfeiture order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Penland, No. 7:05-cr-00710-HFF-1 (D.S.C. July 1, 2010). 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. Penland, 406 F. App'x 816 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

406 F. App'x 816 (United States v. Penland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.