Filed: Jan. 08, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7609 In Re: MARCUS DUKE SHELTON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. Submitted: December 15, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7609 In Re: MARCUS DUKE SHELTON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. Submitted: December 15, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7609
In Re: MARCUS DUKE SHELTON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis.
Submitted: December 15, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001
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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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), seeking to invalidate his
1988 Virginia conviction for petty larceny. To the extent that
Shelton seeks review of a Virginia trial court’s denial of his
state petition for a writ of error coram nobis, we do not possess
jurisdiction to review that court’s decision. See 28 U.S.C. §§
1291-1296 (1994). Furthermore, this court has no jurisdiction
under § 1651(a) to alter the judgment of a Virginia trial court.
See Sinclair v. Louisiana,
679 F.2d 513, 514-15 (5th Cir. 1982).
Accordingly, 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