Filed: Nov. 15, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7302 In Re: MARCUS DUKE SHELTON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcus Duke Shelton, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Marcus Duke Shelton petitions this court f
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7302 In Re: MARCUS DUKE SHELTON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcus Duke Shelton, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Marcus Duke Shelton petitions this court fo..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7302
In Re: MARCUS DUKE SHELTON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis.
Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000
Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcus Duke Shelton, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Duke Shelton petitions this court for a writ of error
coram nobis, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (1994), to invalidate his 1998
Virginia conviction for assault. This court has no jurisdiction
under § 1651(a) to alter the judgment of a Virginia trial court.
See Lowery v. McCaughtry,
954 F.2d 422, 423 (7th Cir. 1992);
Sinclair v. Louisiana,
679 F.2d 513, 514-15 (5th Cir. 1982). To
the extent that Shelton seeks review of the Virginia trial court’s
denial of his state petition, we do not have jurisdiction to review
that court’s decision. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291-1296 (1994). Accord-
ingly, we deny Shelton’s petition. 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.
PETITION DENIED
2