United States v. Stanback
This text of United States v. Stanback (United States v. Stanback) 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UNPUBLISHED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. 08-7631
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KELLY GEORGE STANBACK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (5:02-cr-30020-sgw-1)
Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 3, 2009
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kelly George Stanback, Appellant Pro Se. Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Kelly George Stanback appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion for an extension of time to file a 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Stanback, No. 5:02-cr-30020-sgw-1 (W.D. Va. July 24, 2008). We
deny Stanback’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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. Stanback, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-stanback-ca4-2009.