Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Key, 98-4203 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-4203 Visitors: 42
Filed: Mar. 17, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-4203 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEVEN J. KEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Beckley. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-195) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-4203 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEVEN J. KEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Beckley. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-195) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Natalie J. Sal, COHEN, ABATE & COHEN, L.C., for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Philip J. Combs, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Steven Key appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. Key sought reconsideration of his crim- inal conviction and sentence while his direct appeal was still pending. Because Rule 60(b) is inapplicable to criminal cases and because the district court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider Key’s conviction while it was pending on appeal, we affirm the order of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
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