Filed: Jan. 21, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7366 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. VINCENT JENNELL, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:02-cr-00032-jct-3) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 20, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Jennell, Jr., Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7366 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. VINCENT JENNELL, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:02-cr-00032-jct-3) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 20, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Jennell, Jr., Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7366 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. VINCENT JENNELL, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:02-cr-00032-jct-3) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 20, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Jennell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Vincent Jennell, Jr., appeals a district court order denying his motion for an evidentiary hearing and appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See United States v. Jennell, No. 7:02-cr-00032-jct-3 (W.D. Va. Sept. 9, 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 2
