United States v. Young

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Young

474 F. App'x 902

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 2, 2012

DocketNo. 12-7000

StatusPublished

This text of 474 F. App'x 902 (United States v. Young) 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.

Bluebook

United States v. Young, 474 F. App'x 902 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Paul Young appeals the district court’s orders adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying Young’s motion for appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing into his allegations that the Government breached his plea agreement, and denying Young’s subsequent motion for a certifícate of ap-pealability. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Young, Nos. 2:08-cr-00226-1; 2:12-cv-00002 (S.D.W.Va. Jan. 3, 2012, May 24, 2012). We also deny Young’s motion for reconsideration of the district court’s orders. 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Joseph Paul Young appeals the district court’s orders adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying Young’s motion for appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing into his allegations that the Government breached his plea agreement, and denying Young’s subsequent motion for a certifícate of ap-pealability. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Young, Nos. 2:08-cr-00226-1; 2:12-cv-00002 (S.D.W.Va. Jan. 3, 2012, May 24, 2012). We also deny Young’s motion for reconsideration of the district court’s orders. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 F. App'x 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-young-ca4-2012.