United States v. Penland

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7069

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARY PENLAND,

Petitioner – Appellant,

and

326 HANSA LANE GREER SC; 4318 EAST NORTH STREET; KENNETH C. ANTHONY, JR.,

Parties-in-interest,

CHARLES W. PENLAND, SR.,

Defendant,

JERRY SAAD,

Receiver.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (7:05-cr-00710-HFF-1)

Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 4, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Penland, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah Brereton Barbier, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 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