Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Penland, 10-7069 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 10-7069 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 04, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7069 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARY PENLAND, Petitioner – Appellant, and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, and CHARLES W. PENLAND, SR., Defendant, and 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: Decemb
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7069 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARY PENLAND, Petitioner – Appellant, and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, and CHARLES W. PENLAND, SR., Defendant, and 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Mary Penland appeals the district court’s text order denying her pro se motion to vacate a plea agreement, which the district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 3
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer