Filed: Jun. 26, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6543 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARTIN SANCHEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-97-281) Submitted: June 5, 2003 Decided: June 26, 2003 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martin Sanchez, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6543 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARTIN SANCHEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-97-281) Submitted: June 5, 2003 Decided: June 26, 2003 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martin Sanchez, Appellant Pro S..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6543
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARTIN SANCHEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CR-97-281)
Submitted: June 5, 2003 Decided: June 26, 2003
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Martin Sanchez, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Chastain Wicker, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Martin Sanchez appeals the district court’s orders denying his
“motion to expurgate,” which he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2000), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have
reviewed the record and find that Sanchez’s claim for relief under
§ 2241 is unavailing because he does not meet the test for
proceeding under this statute as set forth in In re Jones,
226 F.3d
328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we find that the district
court did not err in denying Sanchez’s “motion to expurgate” and
thus affirm its order denying the motion. We affirm the district
court’s denial of Sanchez’s motion for reconsideration for the
reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Sanchez,
No. CR-97-281 (D.S.C. Mar. 21, 2003). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal issues are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2